Geoff wrote:I still think Bateman is the natural replacement for him.
Depends how we want to play, for me. Think Bateman is by some distance the better player, but if we're looking for a direct SO'L replacement, then I can see the logic in going for Sutcliffe with a better range of passing.
Joined: Aug 02 2002 Posts: 7267 Location: Wakefield but near to Leeds!
Wigg'n wrote:He's been playing in the back row a lot recently. When I've seen him he's not been massively creative so not really a 6. Top drawer goal kicker though!
Back row, centre, loose forward ,full back and stand off and there lies the problem. No real position for him which must be frustrating for the lad. I posed the question a couplke of years back Williams or Sutcliffe and most on the Leeds board went for Sutcliffe. I was in the minority at the time plumping for Williams. For me he could fit into the centre birth quite nicely as I do not see him as a stand off which is his preferred position. Now a swap deal with Williams would work
Cherry_&_White wrote:Depends how we want to play, for me. Think Bateman is by some distance the better player, but if we're looking for a direct SO'L replacement, then I can see the logic in going for Sutcliffe with a better range of passing.
Agree. JB can play any position but I think he's better suited to SR with someone with a kicking/passing game at LF as an extra pivot rather than just a runner.
Wigg'n wrote:Agree. JB can play any position but I think he's better suited to SR with someone with a kicking/passing game at LF as an extra pivot rather than just a runner.
For me we struggle for size in the back row with Farrell and Bateman both small and likely to be here for the foreseeable future ( ) and we can see from the NRL that the sport is moving more towards big packs mainly playing percentage rugby. Of course this is at odds with SL were teams do still seem to be more expansive. Potentially controversial but I'd stick Flower at loose to make up for that lost size and try to sign a top quality starting prop when Lockers calls it a day. How good would it be to have our own equivalent of Graham/Hill/Peacock? Williams and S.Tomkins at 6 and 7 plus whoever we have at 9 would obviously need to step up and make up for that lost creativity.
Frank Zappa wrote:Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.
The_Enforcer wrote:Most idiotic post ever goes to Grimmy..... The way to restart should be an arm wrestle between a designated player from each side.
All depends on how Wane wants to play. If he wants a pivot at loose, we only have 2 real options in the team (MM and Gregson). Putting any of our SR or props there won't do that kind of job. Sutcliffe would be a viable option, he's got the frame to fill out a bit and as a bonus is a goal kicker.
Grimmy wrote:For me we struggle for size in the back row with Farrell and Bateman both small and likely to be here for the foreseeable future ( ) and we can see from the NRL that the sport is moving more towards big packs mainly playing percentage rugby. Of course this is at odds with SL were teams do still seem to be more expansive. Potentially controversial but I'd stick Flower at loose to make up for that lost size and try to sign a top quality starting prop when Lockers calls it a day. How good would it be to have our own equivalent of Graham/Hill/Peacock? Williams and S.Tomkins at 6 and 7 plus whoever we have at 9 would obviously need to step up and make up for that lost creativity.
Problem with that idea is Flower can't play 80 mins like Faz, Bateman and Joel can. Those three would be my preferred back rowers when Lockers finishes, if they're still here.
I like the rumour about Sutcliffe. A good player being wrecked by Leeds by playing him in a different position each week. I quite tall lad with a good skill set and a goal kicker. Giving him the same position each week will make him a far better player than he currently is.
If FPN and TT are leaving then we are going to need at least one of not two props. Knowing the club's record on signings I'm sure they'll bring quality in for any player leaving.
Users browsing this forum: --[ WW ]-- and 287 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
) and we can see from the NRL that the sport is moving more towards big packs mainly playing percentage rugby. Of course this is at odds with SL were teams do still seem to be more expansive. Potentially controversial but I'd stick Flower at loose to make up for that lost size and try to sign a top quality starting prop when Lockers calls it a day. How good would it be to have our own equivalent of Graham/Hill/Peacock? Williams and S.Tomkins at 6 and 7 plus whoever we have at 9 would obviously need to step up and make up for that lost creativity.
