: Thu Jul 23, 2009 11:15 am  

Gotcha wrote:

The issue still remains though of what could have been had we strengthened when it appeared we should have done.

There is the use of that phrase "should" again.

It has been a source of some debate about whether and when we "should" have strengthened and what the supposed difference it would have made.

: Thu Jul 23, 2009 11:16 am  

G1 wrote:

If this squad wins an unprecedented 3rd championship can anyone really maintain a credible argument that it was under strength?

I guess Leeds' understength would be better than others full strength in that case. Although Saints injuries may play a big part in the destination of the SL crown in 09. They too are understrength at the moment.

: Thu Jul 23, 2009 11:17 am  

G1 wrote:

If this squad wins an unprecedented 3rd championship can anyone really maintain a credible argument that it was under strength?

To play devil's advocate, the fact that we've already missed out on two trophies this season with a squad reputedly to be well under the salary cap suggests squad strength could be better, even if we do go on to win the hub cap and/or the GF.

: Thu Jul 23, 2009 11:17 am  

G1 wrote:

Never acknowledged by me.

If the squad goes on to win the Championship (and even the league Leadership) that is a truer test of a squad's abilities over the course of the season than one off cup games.

This squad appears very capable of doing that.

I have maintained for some time that it was. It was also capable of a cup run with slightly better coaching at the time.

Thankfully, there are signs that my two major gripes are being addressed. The offensive game-plan has improved dramatically and the discipline shows some sporadic signs of improvement.

I said two or three months ago that this squad could win the championship if it addressed its' discipline issues.

If this squad wins an unprecedented 3rd championship can anyone really maintain a credible argument that it was under strength?

If this weekend Leeds pick up injuries to 3 key players, your argument would be in the bin.

If they dont pick up injuries, as I said yesterday your argument is vindicated.

All IFS and BUTTS. But you cant deny it was a risk by the club to go with the squad we had, as admitted by Hetherington recently. Although could be proved correct in the end.

: Thu Jul 23, 2009 11:18 am  

Blue 'n Amber wrote:

I guess Leeds' understength would be better than others full strength in that case. Although Saints injuries may play a big part in the destination of the SL crown in 09. They too are understrength at the moment.

Injuries are yet another intangible that will play a part, no doubt.

We've had them too.

: Thu Jul 23, 2009 11:22 am  

G1 wrote:

Injuries are yet another intangible that will play a part, no doubt.

We've had them too.

You're right we have. Not sure ours all came at the same time like St Helens have so ours were easier to manage.

Anyhow, I think we'll win SL again without having to rely on St Helens injuries. You're right on the discipline though but having watched the Bulls 33-20 game last night no way was Bentham even handed. The amount of forward passes we get away with though is something else.

: Thu Jul 23, 2009 11:52 am  

G1 wrote:

Never acknowledged by me.

Obviously my use of the word 'humble' would exclude your good self from the collective description.

That said even you have opined that the squad could be stronger which I have taken as partial acceptance that this year's squad is understrength within the constraints of the salary cap.

Regardless of what you or I says on the matter the CEO agrees with the general proposition.

: Thu Jul 23, 2009 12:03 pm  

tvoc wrote:

That said even you have opined that the squad could be stronger which I have taken as partial acceptance that this year's squad is understrength within the constraints of the salary cap.

By using that criterion every fan of every team in SL would consider their squad to be under strength as I'm sure everyone believes their club's squad could be stronger.

: Thu Jul 23, 2009 12:12 pm  

Jesus, I go and do some work for a few hours and find you've moved on 3 pages. A summation of my thoughts are:

Squad strength could be stronger but after the Eastwood issue we're left with the hand that we're dealt. I believe that if GH could have got out of that deal he would but the appeal process is still ongoing so I'm guessing that the contract allows Eastwood that luxury.

Whilst that is ongoing we couldn't makea long term replacement signing due to the 2010 salary cap and the club have therefore decided to go with what we have. I doubt any decent players would havecome as a short term replacement.

The loss in the CC meant the players will get a rest and therefore the club could concentrate on long-term planning (subject to Eastwood's appeal). This means that the club will have space to react to injuries in any position rather than get a replacement forward and then find that both your halfbacks suffer season ending injuries. To date only one serious injury has come about and don't forget at the start of the season we were playing with An injured fullback, two wings who had swapped positions, an experiment at right centre, a backup centre who had had longterm injuries in the previous seasons and no experienced backup for our halves apart from the current LF. AS has been said the club have got away with it because there have been no serious injuries (with the exception of Kirke)but if the club had recruited and injuries had happened in other areas they would have been no better off.

With regard to trophies I am very happy with our haul compared with the previous 20 years I have been a supporter, the club could have won other trophies and nearly did but that is by the by.

I am very happy with how the club is run. There could have been things that could have been better, but I've also had doubts that have been proven wrong. The club has been strong and competitive for at least the ast ten years and looks to be able to continue in that vein going forward.

They have 9/10 games left if they are to appear in the GF with at least two weekends off. At this stage they are improving as a unit both in attack and discipline. defence has fallen off a bit but that can be recovered . Unless further injuries hit hard I cannot see too much of a problem and I'm sure all the other clubs (even Saints given their injuries) would like to be in our positionat present.

: Thu Jul 23, 2009 12:12 pm  

Andy Gilder wrote:

By using that criterion every fan of every team in SL would consider their squad to be under strength as I'm sure everyone believes their club's squad could be stronger.

If you are at salary cap level you can't improve the squad.

As Leeds are under for 2009 they could and rightly or wrongly I view G1's comment in that light.