: Mon Feb 16, 2009 5:31 pm  

Billinge_Lump wrote:

Vainikolo was in Gardners pocket pretty much every time he played against him, like he was in Alberts before him.

Ergo Gardner must be a better player.

you mean like the 05 GF eliminator,

and im not sure 10 tries in 11 games in his career against saints puts him in anyones pocket,

nice logic though

: Mon Feb 16, 2009 7:26 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

And because he was a better player,

Not in 2007.

SmokeyTA wrote:

For the season we are quoting, Hape played a grand total of 8 games, Les was playing outside those well known creative centres, James Evans and Nathan McAvoy,
Plus in the year we are talking about, les more successful team were knocked out of the playoffs by Raynors less successful team

He was playing for Bradford in 2007, not Huddersfield. A Bradford team that won three more games in the regular rounds than Hull, before losing to a freak comeback by Wigan in the play-offs.

SmokeyTA wrote:

im not saying he wasnt slow to turn and retrieve a kick, im saying it didnt matter, im saying though he was slower than most to turn and retrieve it, he was also stronger and had a much better fend,

It didn’t matter that players were closer to him when he picked it up because he was much much stronger than the other wingers in the game and would make 10 yards in the tackle,

But had he been quicker in getting back he might have made more ground before meeting a defender, making more ground in total. That does matter. And being poor in that area is a weakness.

SmokeyTA wrote:

Leeds won that game 3 tries to 2, Vainikolo could have easily been the difference, he scored 37 times that year, in 24 games, it would have been a dereliction of duty not to make a plan for him

They didn't need to do it though. They chose to because it was a sensible ploy.

SmokeyTA wrote:

Except it isnt, because he still makes more yards on his average carry than Raynor or Gardner, so whilst it is clear he maybe slower turning round and fielding kicks, it made no difference because he was better going forward, and made more yards once he had picked it up, even though he may have picked it up slower

A nice bit of supposition there. How do you know how much ground he made on kick returns? There is no published statistic for this particular attribute. He might have made more ground in general, but I've given reasons for that already, including the style of play Bradford employed and the make-up of their team.

SmokeyTA wrote:

And even if we accept what you are saying is right, it still makes no sense as to that being the reason Leeds used the tactic, do you really think that Leeds used that tactic so that bradford started their set 2 yards further back rather than to tire out a man who had scored 37 times in that SL season?

Nowhere have I mentioned that the tactic was designed to make Bradford start their sets deeper. As I've said throughout, it was obviously to negate the threat of Vainikolo by making him do work he wasn't very effective at, leaving him with no energy for attacking. If he'd have been Slater-like in his kick-return game, I doubt Leeds would've used the same tactic. To do so would have been potentially suicidal. The reason this method was used to tire out Vainikolo was because it was a weakness in his game.

SmokeyTA wrote:

yes, in effect it is, because it only becomes a weakness in that situation, otherwise, it doesnt even come up, the only time his 'weakness' could be exploited was when a good kick was repeatedly placed behind him, and a well drilled defence made a good kick chase, otherwise his speed in picking the ball up is irrellevant,

That it requires good play from the opposition to exploit it doesn't mean it isn't a weakness.

SmokeyTA wrote:

and it is irrellevant anyway because the weakness is negated by his strength

Huh? Vainikolo being forced to repeatedly turn and being tackled before he could make any significant ground, tiring him to the point of ineffectuality was negated by him being quite strong? Or do you mean his strengths in other areas? I'm not sure I follow.

SmokeyTA wrote:

but lets try looking at it in a different way, what did Leeds gain by kicking to that side, and why was it such a high profile tactic?

They weren't damaged by a player who had the potential to damage them because a weakness of his was exploited.

SmokeyTA wrote:

was it a) because Bradford started their next set deeper into their half because of Les's slowness in turning and picking the ball up

Nope.

SmokeyTA wrote:

b) because it was an attacking ploy and actually an attempt to score or

That was a potential benefit, along with possibly forcing an error, although obviously wouldn't have been a good reason for the tactic.

SmokeyTA wrote:

c) because making Les turn and run to pick up the ball meant he was having to run when he wasnt a threat (i.e. when he didnt have the ball) and he also had to run from his own half with a well drilled kick chase leaving him with little room, which tired him out and left him much less of a threat going forward?

Yep, there we go.

SmokeyTA wrote:

1 of these would be exploiting a weakness, 1 is clearly nonsense, and 1 would be negating a strength

... by exploiting a weakness.

SmokeyTA wrote:

and how does this benefit Hull? or how does it damage the oppositition? Raynor isnt making more yards off the back of it, nor more breaks, nor assists, so what benefit were the team getting from this being the case?

I think he may well have made more yards, along with more offloads and, if he didn't manage to get an offload away, a quick PTB allowing someone like Tony or Sing to follow up with another scoot to catch the not quite set defence/markers. It allows the team to effectively and efficiently clear their own line.

SmokeyTA wrote:

you play to your strengths, Vainikolo was given the role he was because he played to his strengths, Raynor has the role he has because he plays to his strengths.

Yes.

SmokeyTA wrote:

Raynors strengths arent as effective as Vainikolos strengths, therefor Vainikolo was a better player,

Up until 2006, I agree. After that, I don't.

SmokeyTA wrote:

if Raynor could do what vainikolo did thats how he would be used

Assuming he had the best attributes of both? He probably would be used that way in attack, along with how he works currently.

: Mon Feb 16, 2009 7:54 pm  

trys'r'us wrote:

Not in 2007.

he was, by pretty much any measure

He was playing for Bradford in 2007, not Huddersfield. A Bradford team that won three more games in the regular rounds than Hull, before losing to a freak comeback by Wigan in the play-offs.

yes the season bradford finished 3 points and 1 place ahead of hull, who went one game further,

the season shontayne hape played a grand total of 8 games, the season Mcavoy and Evans played for bradford in the centre for the most part because of hapes injury, the year 2007, les' final year

But had he been quicker in getting back he might have made more ground before meeting a defender, making more ground in total. That does matter. And being poor in that area is a weakness.

except he clearly does make more yards, hence him making more yards per carry, whatever 'weakness' you are seeing, it is more than negated by whatever strength it is youre missing

They didn't need to do it though. They chose to because it was a sensible ploy.

well they dont need to do anything really, even sensible things, they did it because it was sensible, just the same as it was sensible not to try and play Marcus Bai at prop

A nice bit of supposition there. How do you know how much ground he made on kick returns? There is no published statistic for this particular attribute. He might have made more ground in general, but I've given reasons for that already, including the style of play Bradford employed and the make-up of their team.

if we suppose that that is the case, then the threat he is going forward is absolutely amazing, he makes more yards, more carries per game, and more yards per carry than raynor, and he does all this despite his weakness being making the easy yards from a kick return, that is a fantastic effort if we suppose what you are saying is true, and underlines what a massive threat he was compared to say Raynor or Gardner

Nowhere have I mentioned that the tactic was designed to make Bradford start their sets deeper. As I've said throughout, it was obviously to negate the threat of Vainikolo by making him do work he wasn't very effective at, leaving him with no energy for attacking. If he'd have been Slater-like in his kick-return game, I doubt Leeds would've used the same tactic. To do so would have been potentially suicidal. The reason this method was used to tire out Vainikolo was because it was a weakness in his game.

and yet it is the same tactic used by pretty much every team, against every other team, its the same reason teams constantly run at Mcguire, Burrow, Long, Pryce, and Roby and Sinfield, or Darren Lockyer the same reason every team will kick it behind every winger, its the most basic tactic in RL, your not as good when you are tired, and wingers are less of a threat running back to collect the ball than running with the ball,

im not aware of any team, ever playing any tactic of kicking to the winger or infront of him, every game we see the ball kicked behind them

That it requires good play from the opposition to exploit it doesn't mean it isn't a weakness.

no, that fact it isnt a weakness but good play by the other team shows it isnt a weakness

Huh? Vainikolo being forced to repeatedly turn and being tackled before he could make any significant ground, tiring him to the point of ineffectuality was negated by him being quite strong? Or do you mean his strengths in other areas? I'm not sure I follow

.

no, im saying that even though he was being forced to repeatedly turn he was still making significant ground, and even though every team knew it was a weakness, and even though it was a tactic many team tried, he was good enough to still make more yards, more yards per carry, more carries per game, and score more tries than gareth raynor

They weren't damaged by a player who had the potential to damage them because a weakness of his was exploited.

no, they werent damaged by a player with the potential to damage them because they negated his attacking prowess, the aim of the tactic wasnt to take advantage of a weakness but negate a strength, unless of course you are arguing not being able to single handedly win a game is a somehow a weakness

NopeThat was a potential benefit, along with possibly forcing an error, although obviously wouldn't have been a good reason for the tactic.



Yep, there we go.



... by exploiting a weakness.

only if the weakness was not being able to be as effective when faced with pressure, a quick kick chase and good defense, which is the same for any player, Les wasnt bad in the GF by any means

I think he may well have made more yards, along with more offloads and, if he didn't manage to get an offload away, a quick PTB allowing someone like Tony or Sing to follow up with another scoot to catch the not quite set defence/markers. It allows the team to effectively and efficiently clear their own line.

yes raynor made 16 more yards that season despite playing 8 more games, Les made more meters per carry and more carries per game, he made much more of an impact when he did play,

and Les very often got a quick play the ball, and he was very very fast

Yes.



Up until 2006, I agree. After that, I don't.



Assuming he had the best attributes of both? He probably would be used that way in attack, along with how he works currently.

other than in defence, his stats arent much different, he was obviously injured more, but he still a threat going forward, and much more of a threat

: Mon Feb 16, 2009 8:05 pm  

Will someone have a word with Harry about his fashion sense. He also needs to know that his socks don't always have to match his shirt.

: Mon Feb 16, 2009 10:54 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

he was, by pretty much any measure

I disagree.

SmokeyTA wrote:

yes the season bradford finished 3 points and 1 place ahead of hull, who went one game further,

the season shontayne hape played a grand total of 8 games, the season Mcavoy and Evans played for bradford in the centre for the most part because of hapes injury, the year 2007, les' final year

Right, so not the year Hull knocked Bradford out then. That was, of course, 2006. Interestingly, that was a game in which Hull exploited the weakness of Vainikolo under discussion, with a kick directly from a scrum. Les's enormous turning circle and slug-like pace meant that, despite him having a 10m start, Tony beat him comfortably to the ball to score.

SmokeyTA wrote:

except he clearly does make more yards, hence him making more yards per carry, whatever 'weakness' you are seeing, it is more than negated by whatever strength it is youre missing

He makes more yards than he makes!? He is good!

SmokeyTA wrote:

well they dont need to do anything really, even sensible things, they did it because it was sensible, just the same as it was sensible not to try and play Marcus Bai at prop

He'd probably have gone alright there.

SmokeyTA wrote:

if we suppose that that is the case, then the threat he is going forward is absolutely amazing, he makes more yards, more carries per game, and more yards per carry than raynor, and he does all this despite his weakness being making the easy yards from a kick return, that is a fantastic effort if we suppose what you are saying is true, and underlines what a massive threat he was compared to say Raynor or Gardner

I think that is true to an extent. He clearly poses more of a threat in general play due to his size advantage over most of his opponents. You're overstating it somewhat there, and continuing to ignore the way in which he/Bradford played influencing how much ball he got and in what positions, but the general point is true. If he wasn't making more ground on an average drive, there'd be something massively wrong.

Just to pick up on a fallacy you seem to have introduced for no discernible reason, I'm not talking about easy yards from kick returns. The exact opposite in fact. He was fine when making easy yards when he had the ball and had room to run. I'm talking about the hard yards, when he has to turn and is pressurised from a good kick and chase. This is an area in which he was weak.

SmokeyTA wrote:

and yet it is the same tactic used by pretty much every team, against every other team, its the same reason teams constantly run at Mcguire, Burrow, Long, Pryce, and Roby and Sinfield, or Darren Lockyer the same reason every team will kick it behind every winger, its the most basic tactic in RL, your not as good when you are tired, and wingers are less of a threat running back to collect the ball than running with the ball,

No, it's not the same tactic. It's a specific targeting of one of the back three with a specific type of kick for the whole game. That isn't a common occurrence.

SmokeyTA wrote:

im not aware of any team, ever playing any tactic of kicking to the winger or infront of him, every game we see the ball kicked behind them

Yes, but not to the same player virtually every time. That was where this tactic differed from the norm.

SmokeyTA wrote:

no, that fact it isnt a weakness but good play by the other team shows it isnt a weakness

Being weak in an area isn't a weakness? Can I ask what definition of 'weakness' you're using? This might be where the disagreement is stemming from.

SmokeyTA wrote:

no, im saying that even though he was being forced to repeatedly turn he was still making significant ground, and even though every team knew it was a weakness, and even though it was a tactic many team tried, he was good enough to still make more yards, more yards per carry, more carries per game, and score more tries than gareth raynor

Now we're getting somewhere! Finally, an admittance that it was a weakness in his game. Although, again, I'm not sure why Raynor was brought in there, but, again, I'll point out that we don't know the breakdown of where and how their respective yards are made. I do believe that Raynor gets far more ball in his own 20 than in any other area of the pitch and I'd also hazard a guess that Big Les got much more ball in open play than Raynor, which would suggest that a definitive statement on their yards from kick returns/scoots/drives to clear their line can't be made on the available evidence.

SmokeyTA wrote:

no, they werent damaged by a player with the potential to damage them because they negated his attacking prowess,

And did so by using one of his weaknesses.

SmokeyTA wrote:

the aim of the tactic wasnt to take advantage of a weakness but negate a strength, unless of course you are arguing not being able to single handedly win a game is a somehow a weakness

It was both. His strength was negated because of the exposition of a weakness. If he wasn't weak in that area, he wouldn't have been targeted as he was. It would have been potentially disastrous to do so. As it was, his slowness in turning and retreating meant that there was little risk as Calderwood had plenty of pace to reach Vainikolo before he had chance to turn and return the ball effectively.

SmokeyTA wrote:

only if the weakness was not being able to be as effective when faced with pressure, a quick kick chase and good defense, which is the same for any player, Les wasnt bad in the GF by any means

The weakness, as I think I might have mentioned previously, was his slowness in turning and retrieving the ball. This allowed Calderwood to shut him down and effect the tackle before Vainikolo could return the ball with any impact.

SmokeyTA wrote:

yes raynor made 16 more yards that season despite playing 8 more games, Les made more meters per carry and more carries per game, he made much more of an impact when he did play,

and Les very often got a quick play the ball, and he was very very fast

We don't know how many yards either made in this area, how many times they had the ball in this area, the speed and effectiveness of their respective PTBs or anything else that isn't assigned a contextless number.

SmokeyTA wrote:

other than in defence, his stats arent much different, he was obviously injured more, but he still a threat going forward, and much more of a threat

I'm not bothered what his stats say, I know from watching him that he wasn't as effective.

: Tue Feb 17, 2009 9:05 am  

Nobles Idea is a non starter as the best players from Union are all off to France according to the Telegraph.

Nobles Idea is a non starter as the best players from Union are all off to France according to the Telegraph.

: Tue Feb 17, 2009 10:00 am  

trys'r'us wrote:

I disagree.



Right, so not the year Hull knocked Bradford out then. That was, of course, 2006. Interestingly, that was a game in which Hull exploited the weakness of Vainikolo under discussion, with a kick directly from a scrum. Les's enormous turning circle and slug-like pace meant that, despite him having a 10m start, Tony beat him comfortably to the ball to score.

the same tactic as England used against NZ in the world cup and Danny Mcguire scored? I wouldnt have thought that Lance Hohaia and Sam Perrett had enormous turning circles and slug like pace,

im pretty sure that like Les, Hohaia won national honours as a sprinter, they breed em slow in NZ it seems

He makes more yards than he makes!? He is good!

read it again, it says he makes more yards and he makes more yards per carry

He'd probably have gone alright there.

but he probably wouldnt be as explosive if he got a bit of space

I think that is true to an extent. He clearly poses more of a threat in general play due to his size advantage over most of his opponents. You're overstating it somewhat there, and continuing to ignore the way in which he/Bradford played influencing how much ball he got and in what positions, but the general point is true. If he wasn't making more ground on an average drive, there'd be something massively wrong.

why would there need to be something wrong? apparently Raynor was a better player, yet more times than not he would have made less yards, and the yards he did make were easy yards from a kick return!

im sure if you asked any coach which they would rather have, the player who makes the most yards per carry by a fair bit and scores per try, or the player who is better at kick returns, but much worse at everything else bar offloading, they would all go for the yards and tries

Just to pick up on a fallacy you seem to have introduced for no discernible reason, I'm not talking about easy yards from kick returns. The exact opposite in fact. He was fine when making easy yards when he had the ball and had room to run. I'm talking about the hard yards, when he has to turn and is pressurised from a good kick and chase. This is an area in which he was weak.

except he really wasnt, because he was much much much stronger than Raynor and every other winger he faced in this leage, its alright getting close to him and pressuring him but the still needed to put him on the floor and the still needed to keep him down, his strength meant he made more yards after contact which cancelled out the problem of him making contact quicker, whereas Raynor used his speed to get a quick PTB Les used his strength, doesnt matter which you use, its the result that matters, and Les' was invariably better in that area

No, it's not the same tactic. It's a specific targeting of one of the back three with a specific type of kick for the whole game. That isn't a common occurrence.

its a very common occurrence, we see it when any explosive winger plays, to tire them out and test them, to put pressure on them, so they are less of a threat going forward, nothing really to do with how good/bad they are at returning kicks

Yes, but not to the same player virtually every time. That was where this tactic differed from the norm.

kickers often have a preffered side to aim at, its very common for one winger to be targetted not because of anything to do with him, but because its easier for the kicker to kick that way

Being weak in an area isn't a weakness? Can I ask what definition of 'weakness' you're using? This might be where the disagreement is stemming from.

a weakness would be an area of the game the opposition targets because it isnt up to the required standard,

there was nothing wrong with Les' kick returns, thats not why he was targetted, he was targetted because it meant he was less of a threat going forward, it was negating a threat

Now we're getting somewhere! Finally, an admittance that it was a weakness in his game. Although, again, I'm not sure why Raynor was brought in there, but, again, I'll point out that we don't know the breakdown of where and how their respective yards are made. I do believe that Raynor gets far more ball in his own 20 than in any other area of the pitch and I'd also hazard a guess that Big Les got much more ball in open play than Raynor, which would suggest that a definitive statement on their yards from kick returns/scoots/drives to clear their line can't be made on the available evidence.

i still dont think weakness was the right word, it wasnt something he did badly, it was just something that wasnt his best asset,

And did so by using one of his weaknesses.

his weakness in being as good as anybody at returning the ball but not being able to return the ball numerous times against well placed kicks and a quick organised kick chase and still be the same force in general play,

you see i dont see that as a weakness, more common sense

It was both. His strength was negated because of the exposition of a weakness. If he wasn't weak in that area, he wouldn't have been targeted as he was. It would have been potentially disastrous to do so. As it was, his slowness in turning and retreating meant that there was little risk as Calderwood had plenty of pace to reach Vainikolo before he had chance to turn and return the ball effectively.

no, the reason vainikolo didnt make an impact in the 04 GF wasnt down to calderwood, it was down to Mckenna, and Chev Walker both being big centres, they closed him down with Calderwood and left Les with nowhere to run, he didnt play badly in the 04 GF and there was nothing wrong with his returns throughout the game, he just wasnt a threat going forward, his returns were fine

The weakness, as I think I might have mentioned previously, was his slowness in turning and retrieving the ball. This allowed Calderwood to shut him down and effect the tackle before Vainikolo could return the ball with any impact.

expect, the problem wasnt with his kick returns was it! if you watch the 04 final Bradford didnt lose because of Les' poor kick returns, they were fine,

the tactic was used to tire him out, not because his returns were poor, if he isnt doing something poorly how is it a weakness?

We don't know how many yards either made in this area, how many times they had the ball in this area, the speed and effectiveness of their respective PTBs or anything else that isn't assigned a contextless number.

i dont need to, i watched him and them both and know that to be the case,

I'm not bothered what his stats say, I know from watching him that he wasn't as effective.

i disagree, how many games of those 17 did you watch? i watched about 6, and i can tell you the last time i saw him, against Leeds, he was very much a threat, ask Jamie Peacock

: Tue Feb 17, 2009 11:49 am  

SmokeyTA wrote:

the same tactic as England used against NZ in the world cup and Danny Mcguire scored? I wouldnt have thought that Lance Hohaia and Sam Perrett had enormous turning circles and slug like pace,

im pretty sure that like Les, Hohaia won national honours as a sprinter, they breed em slow in NZ it seems

Clearly I was taking the mickey with that comment. Nonetheless, the point stands that the kick was used to exploit Les's relatively poor speed when turning to retrieve a kick.

SmokeyTA wrote:

read it again, it says he makes more yards and he makes more yards per carry

I said that Les would have made more yards if he'd been able to get to the ball quicker and begin his return sooner with more room. This is surely obvious to all. You then claimed that he did make more ground. This is bizarre and impossible. How can he have made more ground than he actually made?

SmokeyTA wrote:

why would there need to be something wrong? apparently Raynor was a better player, yet more times than not he would have made less yards, and the yards he did make were easy yards from a kick return!

I specifically said from an average drive. No mention of easy yards from a kick return. If someone of Les's size taking the ball in up the middle wasn't making more ground than the tiny, weak Gareth Raynor there would have to be something wrong with him.

SmokeyTA wrote:

im sure if you asked any coach which they would rather have, the player who makes the most yards per carry by a fair bit and scores per try, or the player who is better at kick returns, but much worse at everything else bar offloading, they would all go for the yards and tries

Well, yes. I'm not sure what point you're making there. It's obvious that Les would be picked over someone who is much worse.

SmokeyTA wrote:

except he really wasnt, because he was much much much stronger than Raynor and every other winger he faced in this leage, its alright getting close to him and pressuring him but the still needed to put him on the floor and the still needed to keep him down, his strength meant he made more yards after contact which cancelled out the problem of him making contact quicker, whereas Raynor used his speed to get a quick PTB Les used his strength, doesnt matter which you use, its the result that matters, and Les' was invariably better in that area

Except he wasn't invariably better at all. And, in case you've missed it, the point I've been making throughout is that his slowness to turn meant that he could be tackled and nullified before he had chance to use his Samson-esque strength to carry all these other weak, feeble wingers back to where they came from.

SmokeyTA wrote:

its a very common occurrence, we see it when any explosive winger plays, to tire them out and test them, to put pressure on them, so they are less of a threat going forward, nothing really to do with how good/bad they are at returning kicks

It's not common at all. I can't ever remember seeing anyone targeted with that intensity for a full game. Desi Williams against Cas maybe, but even then it wasn't quite as pronounced an effort to get the ball to him after every kick.

SmokeyTA wrote:

kickers often have a preffered side to aim at, its very common for one winger to be targetted not because of anything to do with him, but because its easier for the kicker to kick that way

But not from both main kickers with exactly the same type of kick to the same area every time. That isn't a common occurrence.

SmokeyTA wrote:

a weakness would be an area of the game the opposition targets because it isnt up to the required standard,

there was nothing wrong with Les' kick returns, thats not why he was targetted, he was targetted because it meant he was less of a threat going forward, it was negating a threat

He was targeted as both his slowness in turning meant that he could be stopped before he had a chance to make an impact with his returns and to tire him out to nullify his attack.

SmokeyTA wrote:

i still dont think weakness was the right word, it wasnt something he did badly, it was just something that wasnt his best asset,

Right, so it was a lack of strength in that area. It was something that he could've done better. Some people might even say a weakness in his game. That doesn't necessarily mean it was something he did badly (although his speed to turn and retrieve was poor), just that it was an area that wasn't strong that could be used to the advantage of his opponents.

SmokeyTA wrote:

his weakness in being as good as anybody at returning the ball but not being able to return the ball numerous times against well placed kicks and a quick organised kick chase and still be the same force in general play,

you see i dont see that as a weakness, more common sense

He wasn't as good as anybody when confronted with the type of tactic Leeds used. That's the point. His slowness in getting back meant that he wasn't as effective as someone who could've got back quicker.

SmokeyTA wrote:

no, the reason vainikolo didnt make an impact in the 04 GF wasnt down to calderwood, it was down to Mckenna, and Chev Walker both being big centres, they closed him down with Calderwood and left Les with nowhere to run, he didnt play badly in the 04 GF and there was nothing wrong with his returns throughout the game, he just wasnt a threat going forward, his returns were fine

McKenna played in the that back-row didn't he? With Senior at centre? Not that that makes a difference. When he got the ball, his returns were fine. I've never claimed otherwise. His slowness in getting to the ball meant that he wasn't as effective on them as he could have been if he'd got back quicker.

SmokeyTA wrote:

expect, the problem wasnt with his kick returns was it! if you watch the 04 final Bradford didnt lose because of Les' poor kick returns, they were fine,

the tactic was used to tire him out, not because his returns were poor, if he isnt doing something poorly how is it a weakness?

Again, you're trying to add a different meaning to something I've written to make it easier to argue against. A straw man, if you will. I haven't claimed that his returns were poor or that they were the reason for Bradford's defeat. I've made it perfectly clear that I'm saying he was targeted to tire him and nullify his attack. The reason he was targeted with this type of kick to tire him rather than some other tactic was that his slowness in getting back meant that he wasn't going to be a threat with his returns.

SmokeyTA wrote:

i dont need to, i watched him and them both and know that to be the case,

As have I and, from 2006, I doubt that is the case.

SmokeyTA wrote:

i disagree, how many games of those 17 did you watch? i watched about 6, and i can tell you the last time i saw him, against Leeds, he was very much a threat, ask Jamie Peacock

I'll have seen all of those on Sky plus the games against Hull, so a similar number probably. From those games, I know that he was nowhere near the same threat as he was in 2005. He never looked like tearing loose and scoring 10 tries in two games against Hull as he did in 2005. He wasn't a bad player, but he wasn't the same almost unstoppable player that he was previously.

: Tue Feb 17, 2009 11:53 am  

quote-tastic.

: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:05 pm  

Say the replay yesterday. Loved Harry Gration's top, very classy. Nice to see Brian Noble so encouraged by youth systems.