The use of the trialist 'A N Other' in the first grade could be an issue historically (I'm not sure) but I can't think of one in my time of keeping contempory Leeds records stretching back 31 years. Even with the likes of Steve Ford and Steve Pilgrim in the 'no free gangway days' from Union they were still known and I think still named when they trialed at 1st grade level.



'A' teams were an entirely different matter though.



I would regard any player making a first grade competitive debut (not trial, friendly or testimonial) deserving of recognition even if they turn out to be a one 'cap' wonder.



Brett Delaney and Greg Eastwood became the 135th and 136th players to play for Leeds in the SL Era (if you recognise the SL Era includes the 1996 Challenge Cup competition) That list also includes Joe Chandler, Chris Chapman, Michael Haley, Jonny Hepworth, Nathan McAvoy, Scott Murrell and Nathan Picchi who all made just a solitary appearance from the bench at first grade level.



Who makes the rules for recognition? Is it an internal club decision or does it have to follow a convention imported from elsewhere? FWIW the England Cricket team appear to allocate a unique number to each player on debut, for example Amzad Khan played V the West Indies in 2009 and was immediately awarded number 642.... I don't think he's played for the Test team since.



I note with some interest that the Headingley Story Volume 2 player stats are preceded by the line =#FF0000'Qualification: Ten Appearances (excluding substitutions)' and was IIRC at some point explained by the author as being thus due to a lack of space. If that =#FF0000exact criteria was applied in this era it would have taken Carl Ablett 5 seasons and 38 appearances to earn an entry in an updated volume produced after the 2008 season. If the book was released before the 2008 season then Ablett doesn't make it despite contributing 5 first grade tries before the end of 2007. Not forgetting Nick Scruton had to wait 7 seasons to amass 10 starts on his 56th Appearance.



It's a different era (re-the modern game use of substitutions) but it kind of illustrates a point.

How many appearances for Leeds did Jonny Lidell make? Wasn't he a 'one cap wonder'?

Quote Wheels="Wheels"How many appearances for Leeds did Jonny Lidell make? Wasn't he a 'one cap wonder'?'" Jon Liddell made one appearance for Leeds away at Wigan 23rd March 2001. He didn't make that particular one cap wonder list as his was a starting role rather than one from the bench. To highlight the brevity of one such Leeds career Jonny Hepworth played the final three minutes of the away game at the Broncos 9th May 2003. Possibly the shortest 1st grade career in the club's long history. Previously on Soap..... viewtopic.php?f=17&t=443095

Quote Wheels="Wheels"How many appearances for Leeds did Jonny Lidell make? Wasn't he a 'one cap wonder'?'" Jon Liddell made one appearance for Leeds away at Wigan 23rd March 2001. He didn't make that particular one cap wonder list as his was a starting role rather than one from the bench. To highlight the brevity of one such Leeds career Jonny Hepworth played the final three minutes of the away game at the Broncos 9th May 2003. Possibly the shortest 1st grade career in the club's long history. Previously on Soap..... viewtopic.php?f=17&t=443095

Posting from iPhone very quickly, but Matt Diskin replied to my tweet and it as thought, your apperance number awarded after 10 apperances.

Cheers IA

Thanks for that Mr I Armadillo.

To quote Matt Diskin's exact words in his tweet for clarity "it's the number order of club representatives, only applicable when you've played your 10th game."

I'm wondering if that's literally the 10th Appearance or 10th Start?



It could be important for a little project I've got in mind.

The Headingley Story Volume 2 - Lists players that have made 10 Starts (excluding substitutions)



I have kept contempory Leeds records following on from where Volume 2 left off. If I also exclude substitutions I'm around 14 players light. If I use Appearances rather than Starts and exclude non playing sub appearances and spookily I agree with the 720 figure (Buderus - 720).



That's pretty close given the material I have to work with. Would Leeds have done the equivalent of what I've just done? Surely not.



The 10 game qualifier (be it Starts or Appearances) has still got me baffled. If you're going to do something, why not do it complete.



I look forward to Leeds publishing the full list sometime.

I presume you've already asked the club for a full list.

Presume nothing where I'm concerned. I didn't even know what the numbers represented two days ago.



I've now edited my original post having excluded 2 non playing sub appearances by Andy Kirk which don't count in official records.



I prefer to weave conspiracy theories rather than accept any official explanations.

I knew you would pose this question and indeed that is why I decided to quote Matt, verbatim, in the above post.



I think your supposition is correct and that the club appears to be following the 'rule' set in the Headingley Story Vol 2... but it would appear they have not followed it to the letter, given your investigation/check above, and have made it appearances and not starts? Is it because the only records they have are taken from the Headingley Story and they are just trying to follow a similar system for the more modern records and have changed things slightly or even made an error in not following exact same system? However, I agree, why not just say that from the last player records in Headingley Story Vol 2 it was based on this system, giving us a last player number of 'x' who was player 'y' but from that point starting with a new system in which the following player 'z' is given the player number 'x+1' based on this new system?

Don't they have a similar system in cricket? i.e, taking Yorkshire or example, as far as I'm aware a player doesn't automatically get a full county cap upon their first appearance for the first team, but instead have to wait a bit further down the line (I think until a point where it is deemed by the powers that be that they are worthy of it, as opposed to playing a fixed amount of games).

Didn't I just say that.





The Headingley Story Volume 2's player records were limited but only because of the space available to the author Ken Dalby. I presume Mr Dalby will have compiled a full list from the 'Headingley archives' when researching the Headingley Story series.



The fact I can get to the figure issued to Buderus is no real comfort, if anything it raises my suspicions (which granted may be totally baseless.) I'd have expected there to be a good chance that one or more players could have fallen through the gap of not quite making the requisite 10 starts pre 1978/1979 or 10 appearances post 1979/1980 but may have satisfied one or the other rule had there not been a dividing line drawn.



On the other hand perhaps no-one was effected, that's also a possibility.



The other issue I have with Volume 2's records is the use of the Lazenby Cup to denote a player's debut as these games were never recognised in the official player's records. If (when the list is published) the sequence follows the Volume 2 debut order that will be a serious indicator of how the list has been created.



Still, I look forward to the club publishing the full 1 to 720 list (as it stands at this point) hopefully sometime in the near future, unless they already have and I've missed it. Whereas Ken Dalby was space limited in print form such issues no longer exist in the internet age.



For my part I'll continue to record every 1st grade appearance no matter how brief it may be (Jonny Hepworth - 3 minute Leeds career) and give them a number in the SL Era. The latest being Tom Bush who became either number 136 or 137 (depending on whether you include John Riley's NPS appearance in '96)

Whos the closest player to the next number, and what is the next number?

Looking back through the thread the last player to reach his 10th Appearance was Danny Buderus and he was issued with number 720.



Next in line is any one of:



Greg Eastwood (6)

Ben Jones-Bishop (6)

Brett Delaney (5)

Jay Pitts (5)

Paul McShane (4)

Kyle Amor (2)

Tom Bush (2)

Chris Clarkson (2)

Luke Ambler (1)

Michael Coady (1)

Dane Manning (1)

given the state of the side, my bet would be Pitts

Did any else notice whether Lee Smith had a number on the front of his shirt V Bradford?



I thought he didn't which would be peculiar as I'm almost certain he has made the requisite 10 Appearances (and even 10 Starts if applicable)

Away shirts only isn't it?

I made that mistake earlier in the season but no it's on the home shirt as well apparently.



I'll have a look again later. When they were lining up for the minute's silence might be a good place to start.

It depends if it is as easy to add the number on the front of the shirt as it is the name and number on the back

The way they were being peeled off and flicked about after last season's Grand Final I'd say it's probably easier.

If he plays tonight at St Helens Brett Delaney will be making his 10th Appearance (and Start) so should be in line to become number 721.



Let's wait and see how quickly it appears on his shirt.

IIRC, the capping system in domestic cricket happend to players after an unspecified length of time, but usually once a player was turning out for the First XI on a regular basis or had gained higher representative honours (picked for England), then the county cap would come shortly afterwards.



Being picked for England resulted in automatically being capped for the national side.



Haven't there been cases in the past, where players have been capped for England BEFORE they have been capped for Yorkshire / their county ?



In terms of how Yorkshire denotes a capped / uncapped player, the uncapped player has a cap with a closed rose / bud on it, whilst fully county-capped players have a cap with an open rose on it.

Plus they wear different sweaters. the second XI sweater has one broad Oxford blue band while the capped players get to wear the full Yorks colours, Oxford Blue, Cambridge blue & gold. That's an easier way to tell them apart I find.