Re: Jimmy Keinhorst : Thu Jul 02, 2015 1:29 pm  

Andy Gilder wrote:

We've got two very successful options at stand-off in Sinfield and McGuire, with Lilley waiting in the wings should both be missing. Not sure why we would need to test someone else out in that position?

IN the absence of one of those we would be struggling though and I could see the sense in using two players who are physically up to SL standard, over a youngster with little experience.

Re: Jimmy Keinhorst : Sat Jul 04, 2015 9:27 am  

nantwichexile wrote:

Of course all this becomes less of an issue if the rumours of a "big name" signing at SO manifest themselves to be true.....

Less of an issue? When was Keinhorst playing stand off kind of issue in the first place?

Re: Jimmy Keinhorst : Sat Jul 04, 2015 10:18 am  

thebloodbath wrote:

Ryan Hall to second row and Delaney to prop.

I like your plan, but I suggest that Delaney to full back with Zac and Burrow to prop, could be the magic formula that sees us hit the top.

Re: Jimmy Keinhorst : Sat Jul 04, 2015 10:53 am  

G1 wrote:

Less of an issue? When was Keinhorst playing stand off kind of issue in the first place?

Ha! Very clever

Keinhorst specifically playing at SO is not an issue....the position itself going into 2016 could be (at this moment prior to any potential new announcements).
If we consider Sutcliffe and McGuire to be first choice with no Sinfield as cover then what are we left with? Burrow at SH yes and many seem to think Lilley is ready too, but if he isn't then what?
Somebody else here stated maybe try Moon at SO with Keinhorst taking his centre position....I would say that too is 'worth considering'. Sutcliffe many do consider would make a better LF anyway.
Fundamentally I believe Keinhorst has shown enough to be deserving of a regular place within the squad and seemingly has enough versatility/skills/workrate to be justified in that. It seems McDermott thinks so too as he was selected yesterday at Singleton's expense.

Re: Jimmy Keinhorst : Sat Jul 04, 2015 11:05 am  

TOMCAT wrote:

I like your plan, but I suggest that Delaney to full back with Zac and Burrow to prop, could be the magic formula that sees us hit the top.

All joking and 'weird suggestions' aside it does show the remarkable ability of the modern RL player to be able to play in so many different positions.
Not for a moment am I suggesting move Watkins to FB, but it is noticeable from this position he was instrumental in Handley's second try...the extra space and room at FB allowed him to 'pick his spot' to attack at pace. In attack he would be more lethal from this position than he is at centre.....but in defence he would never be as good as Hardaker of course. FB without a doubt is Zak's position, but he too has that versatility.
Delaney plays like a prop....and let's not forget it's the path that Chev Walker has taken (centre/2nd row/prop) and who would have thought that in his earlier days at Leeds?
Ablett is another..which IS his best position? I still stay he is best at LF, but his excellent try last night was from the RIGHT centre position. He is just as adept at LEFT centre as well as his more regular selection in the second row.

Away from Leeds just take a look at Wilkin....wears no.12 and plays well there, but many on the saints board seem to think he should be first choice scrum half !!!!!
I suppose Kevin Dick might have had the necessary bulk to play second row too...but still !!

Re: Jimmy Keinhorst : Sat Jul 04, 2015 11:59 am  

Devils advocate question: If Keinhorst is being suggested as a stand off, as has Hardaker, Sinfield was moved there, Sutcliffe is probably a 13 fitting in there, even Moon is suggested Why does it seem like Watkins is never suggested? Is there a reason throughout his career and from a very young age that he is seen as an outside back?

Just a question with no specific accusation, but if Kallum was white, would we perhaps have seen someone imagine him as a stand off?

Re: Jimmy Keinhorst : Sat Jul 04, 2015 12:29 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

Devils advocate question: If Keinhorst is being suggested as a stand off, as has Hardaker, Sinfield was moved there, Sutcliffe is probably a 13 fitting in there, even Moon is suggested Why does it seem like Watkins is never suggested? Is there a reason throughout his career and from a very young age that he is seen as an outside back?

Just a question with no specific accusation, but if Kallum was white, would we perhaps have seen someone imagine him as a stand off?

What a crazy suggestion !! ....some have stated he should be tried at SO - rather in the mould of Ingliss he could be successful at FB, centre and SO. However, Watkins is probably the most "complete" natural centre the club has and he 'commands' that position wherever possible.
Similarly Hardaker 'commands' the FB position although he too could equally play elsewhere in the backs.

Re: Jimmy Keinhorst : Sat Jul 04, 2015 12:59 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

Devils advocate question: If Keinhorst is being suggested as a stand off, as has Hardaker, Sinfield was moved there, Sutcliffe is probably a 13 fitting in there, even Moon is suggested Why does it seem like Watkins is never suggested? Is there a reason throughout his career and from a very young age that he is seen as an outside back?

Just a question with no specific accusation, but if Kallum was white, would we perhaps have seen someone imagine him as a stand off?

The reason Watkins is not considered as a stand-off is because he drops the ball cold too often.

Re: Jimmy Keinhorst : Sat Jul 04, 2015 1:19 pm  

craigizzard wrote:

The reason Watkins is not considered as a stand-off is because he drops the ball cold too often.

I doubt he'd drop the ball any more than McGuire does.

Re: Jimmy Keinhorst : Sat Jul 04, 2015 4:37 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

Devils advocate question: If Keinhorst is being suggested as a stand off, as has Hardaker, Sinfield was moved there, Sutcliffe is probably a 13 fitting in there, even Moon is suggested Why does it seem like Watkins is never suggested? Is there a reason throughout his career and from a very young age that he is seen as an outside back?

Just a question with no specific accusation, but if Kallum was white, would we perhaps have seen someone imagine him as a stand off?

Pass selection and passing range. Kicking game. Effectiveness running in space out wide.

All have much more to do with where he plays than the colour of his skin and any perceived racial bias throughout his development.