What this team needs more than anything is a serious half back that can organise the attack - Croft is OK but he is not an organiser. Neither Frawley nor Sinfield are of sufficient quality to propel the team into the top 4.

All I here on here is a clamour for more props - how many do you need? Given the backs seem to do all the yard making what are they actually bringing to the party?

In answer to your question, a minimum of six of a good standard. We currently have four (I'm very generously including Sangare in that) and are also getting rid of Donaldson and Hudson from this years squad. For context Wigan are in double figures. Our backs do so much yardage work in the absence of forwards who can. We'll get a chance to revisit half back at the end of 25 when Frawley is OOC.

Of the genuine Props we have, I'd say only Oledski is of the right quality. Holroyd is injured too frequently missing lots of games, Lisone is good for 15 minute spells but isn't fit, Sangare is less fit than Lisone and I'd question his application and attitude, then we are into players who are not genuine props.

I'd happily replace Sangare and Lisone, and Holroyd needs to prove he can get (and stay) on the field.

We need at least 2 props before any of the above leave, and some should be leaving if we are serious about winning things.

Half backs need the platform to perform. We are woefully short in the forwards, that needs addressing first and foremost.

You ask how many props do we need, well at one point and for quite a long time on Saturday we didn't have any on the pitch, I'd say we need more than that.

A new half wont be on the agenda for for 2025.The halfs will be better if the pack sets a platform.

Absolutely right Chris, without more grunt in the front row, that can dominate the opposition and win collisions, we could have Wally Lewis and Peter Sterling at halfback and still lose most games. Conversely, get the front row right and Frawley in particular will look better than he has at any point this season. He might not be the answer to our halfback conundrum, but we're not giving him much of a chance right now either.

Couldn’t agree more. 6 is the minimum. Preferably 6 and a couple of kids.

The last time we won the GF, we had Singo, Garbutt, Mullaly, Cuthbo, plus Ferres who played more as a middle.

Looking at the squad, we had Galloway, jjb who probably played more as a middle, ormandroyd, baldwinson and Mik in the squad for the year.

The most recent challenge cup win we had Mik, Ava, Prior, cuthbertson and Donaldson. The wider squad included Crosby, Albert, Mustapha, Holroyd and Walters. Granted some of them won’t have played a great deal, but that in itself makes a point.

Ultimately look at the last few grand finalists and winners, Wigan, saints, Catalan. Big pack with strength in depth.

I’de be looking to do the same. Given we had no props on the bench v Wire and Goudemand was left out , it does not say much for his impact.

Hall in for Fusi
Martin, Donaldson, Roberts, Corey Johnson, hopefully Hudson plus Olpherts salary should all be available to spend.

Whether we can move others on , who knows.

Recruiting quality over numbers is key . 2 quality forwards hopefully , possibly 3 if we can make cap space.

A tough preseason and fingers crossed with Gannon and Holroyd. Agree with a few others, we should be a much better outfit.

Shouldn't there be some money from Hooley and possibly Myler leaving too?

For me any player with less than 50% appearance record should be moved on regard less of age or potential. we are carrying too many sick notes, Fusi, Holroyd, Gannon, Simpson (not played for 2 years) Warren, Hudson. Plus a few others, that least 6 players sat in the stands who have hardly played 2 seasons between them.
There’s sticking by players then there’s just ridiculous. Thats enough salary for 2 really good props or 3 very solid forwards.

If a young player has a bad injury we should move them on? Don't be ridiculous

And the two actual props available didn't make 100m in the game between them! 4 of Leeds back 5 apart from the one made of glass all carrier the ball 100m plus and thats the issue. We could sign the worlds best scrum half and they would struggle to spare a back line that is knackered from doing the forwards work for them.

It's not a fantasy league though. Your approach would leave us in a massive hole regards recruitment, as well as throwing out the babies with the bath water. How will we ever attract young players to the club if we kick them out ( at our expense) at the first sign of adversity? Allowing for the players from the 24 squad who have left and are likely to leave - Myler, Olpherts, Martin, Fus, Donno, Hudson, Roberts - I reckon we have maybe 400k to spend even allowing for the arrival of Hall. To my mind that's probably a marquee prop, another prop and maybe a second row if we can make a European player (Bousquet?) part of the equation. That, in my opinion, makes us a very competitive outfit next year.

I'd love to sign RCG, but don't think it's realistic. Arthur will have some players in mind, and Blease has said today in the media that we're honing in on an overseas target for next season already.

Tetavano is a cautionary tale to not spend over the odds on a big name overseas prop on extender money. Hopefully we get the sensible balance of cost, quality and age.

But its not the first sign of adversity is it, we have given out extended contracts to some of these sick notes hence why our cap is in bits,
Hudson never played super league ever and was injured for 12 previous months, and we give him a contract, utter madness Simpson not played for 2 years, thats not a bit of adversity thats a player who might never play at the super league level or ever again.

Don't disagree with you on Hudson. Maybe the worse project signing in our long and pretty undistinguished history of project signings. But by all acounts he is on his way. Simpson got thrown in when he was still a boy, got an injury as a result and then picked up another one in pre-season. I think we need to give him a fair crack next year. I have less sympathy with Holroyd who seems to be perennially unavailable, but he's OOC at the end of 25. Let's see if Arthur can light the blue touch paper before letting him go. Gannon has the potential to be great player. I'd be loathe to let him go, out of pure frustration.

I hope Gannon can get back on track, he'll be another player Arthur would enjoy working with and he'd really benefit from the approach we're seeing

Morgan is still only 20, any talk of getting rid because of his injury is daft.

He’ll be like an extra signing next year, we’ve rightly treated him with kid gloves this year, give him the time to work on his physique, he’s a real talent.

Not quite what i said though is it? We shouldn’t be offering contract extensions though to Players are are hardly available for selection, thats utter madness and like i say thats why our cap is in a mess.

https://x.com/aaronbower/status/1827285 ... 20999?s=46 Looking at Jordan Rapana apparently

https://x.com/aaronbower/status/1827285 ... 20999?s=46 Looking at Jordan Rapana apparently

That just wouldn't make any sense

Nope it would be a shocker

Yep. That would be Bleases credibility straight out of the window. Pure clickbait - like Watkins, like Knight, like Hastings - I'd hazard.

Re Gannon, Holroyd and Simpson, like it or not hard decisions might have to be made at some point.

In the case of Gannon the question is not about how good he might be, but whether he should play at all. I know they are being ultra-careful until he's turned 21, but if he keeps getting put out of the game for long periods through head knocks, at some stage he and the club will have to think about him giving it up.

Simpson has missed a hell of a lot of rugby. These are key developmental years, so even assuming he comes back fit next season, he's way behind in terms of experience. Fingers crossed though.

Holroyd's just been a mess one way or another for some time. He's 23 and last season was the first time he's even got close to playing a full season. I'd hope he can improve a lot next year, his lack of punch with the ball is utterly weird to me, he's a big lad, perfect build for a prop and unlike Sangare he seems to move reasonably well. But again, promise or otherwise, at some stage he'll have to be let go if he can't play enough games at a decent quality.

These three are in our top 25, and while it sounds harsh, we can't keep hanging on waiting for players to get fit or find form. SL squads just aren't big enough for that and we've suffered for years from underperforming players hanging around way too long. I'm not saying jettison any of them now, but as rollin thunder says, renewal is another thing altogether.

Actually he didn't say that. He said any player with a less than 50% appearance rate should be moved on "regardless of age or potential." There was no mention of end of contract. Of course number of appearances is a valuable gauge when it comes to contract renewal, but it's rash (and very expensive) to rush to judgement before then.