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

Not in 2007.



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.



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.



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



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.



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.



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



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



Nope.



That 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.



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.



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.

he was, by pretty much any measure



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




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


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




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





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




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


.

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




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

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



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




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

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.

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.



He makes more yards than he makes!? He [iis[/i good!



He'd probably have gone alright there.



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.



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.



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



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.



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.



And did so by using one of his weaknesses.



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.



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.



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

[url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/club/4642902/Top-English-rugby-talent-lured-by-Euro.htmlNobles Idea is a non starter[/url as the best players from Union are all off to France according to the Telegraph.

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


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

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




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

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




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





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

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



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




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



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




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?



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

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

Clearly I was taking the 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.



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?



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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



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.

quote-tastic.

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

Everytime Noble appears on TV he seems to age 10 years. I wonder what would happen if I keep watching the loop on the SL Show.