A position Mr MClennan has played JJB in this year, I might add. He's done it a few times.

Yet nobody on here ever mentions it. Strange how Smith got lambasted for the same decision............

The starting pack was:

Ryan Bailey, Matt Diskin, Danny Ward
Ali Lauitiiti, Chris McKenna, Gareth Ellis

Subs:

Danny McGuire
Andrew Dunemann
Willie Poching
Jamie Jones-Buchanan

Cheers.

Were Bailey and Ward substitued during the game or did they both play 80 mins?

Ward played 67 minutes
Bailey played 63

I guess so although Ward was still out on his feet at the end.

Excerpt from the YEP match report:

[iLeeds went into the game as red hot favourites, but they failed to live up to their star billing – and crucially coach Tony Smith's selection gamble failed. The decision to start Keith Senior in the left-centre, despite a painful ankle injury, and to leave out veteran prop Barrie McDermott was a huge risk and it didn't pay off. Senior was clearly not fit and had to be substituted at half-time. Unable to run, his contribution was limited to flicking out passes from a standing start, depriving the Rhinos of one of their most potent strike weapons. McDermott's absence was also felt as the Rhinos lacked an enforcer to shake up Hull's dominant pack[/i

67 mins is a long time for a prop like Ward. Especially considering how much work he did in those 67 mins too.

I disagree re-barries form in 2005 and on previous meetings against the hull pack he'd come out favourably performance and result wise.
I may be wrong but didn't he break his leg and end up at bramley in 98???
I'm not questioning his discipline issues he openly admits to them but i thought that he did his leg in 98.
People will always have differing opinions on smith in 2005 simply because dropping barrie mac and starting with a lame senior in a cc final surprised so many and then when we lost aswell it was an easy way to blame smith for some.
However imo they failed to see the bai brainfart,calderwoods blunder or the fact that hull were pretty much deserved winners.

I'm sorry, but you are just arguing for the sake of it today, how can you say that the team we sent out was the best options for that game. No recognised prop on the bench to go with 2 from Hull, two half backs on the bench, even if 1 was playing hooker.

It was a stupid team selection which back-fired. We could have got away with a lack of a prop on the bench if there was a 3rd forward, but there wasn't meaning that all the forwards would have had to do 60 minutes each, rather than the clsoe to 50 that they usually played with in previous games.

I wouldn't have minded Barrie being dropped if Scruton was playing, but he wasn't selected either.

Agreed, especially with it being a hot day too!

We were clear favourites, but were not untouchable, and Smith tied our hands behind our back

Played as 4th prop is something that a second row could be expected to adapt to quite easily. Doing it as 3rd is a different proposition

Jamie Jones-Buchanan has now started 23 games for Leeds at prop.

His first starting game there was 29th April 2005 and he'd started four times in the position before the Challenge Cup final came around.

Still not my idea of a prop though.

Me neither, I'd go as far as to say IMHO he is the most ineffective prop in SL when played there. A good 2nd rower yes, prop no.

So, despite, assertions to the contrary it is clear that Leeds did NOT play Hull in the 2005 CC Final with 2 props.

I see you're no longer relying on statistics you openly admit are skewed but now using Peter Smith's opinion as definitive souirce material.

Are there no depths?

There were two mobile, experienced forwards on the bench both of whom had previous experience of playing prop for Leeds.

How small was Willie Poching compared to Ewan Dowes?

The team selected was perfectly capable of beating Hull. They didn't because Hull played exceptionally well and we didn't. A very experienced player made the howler of his career and two young players fluffed a kick at the end.

That is sport.

That things may have been different had an other played centre or Barrie played instead of anyone else named is far from clear and completely speculative.

Thank you. I'd imagine he'd packed down there many times in addition to those starts as well.

Nor mine frankly but not a view shared by Tony Smith (criticised roundly for it) or Brian Mclennan (fawningly idolised for it).

Still makes it hard for any rational person to maintain that we took on Hull with 2 props.

This is without considering where poching played in that game.

I have no stats on the minutes player's play in any game let alone in Challenge Cup games. The SL website stats (that I collate each week and reproduce on here) don't cover the Challenge Cup at all.

I've never relied solely on stats, they are but one of several resources one of which is the local Leeds newspaper reports. Often referred to as an unofficial Leeds propaganda machine.

Kind of day you might want someone more mobile in the the front row?

i wondered how long it would take!

Or the kind of day you might want more than 2 forwards on the bench?

We did have. Unless an interchange hooker is no longer a forward.

A hooker doesn't count as a forward on the bench in those terms, he may pack down, but he's not a meter maker.

Duneman was a halfback, or a part-time hooker at best. It should have been him or McGuire on the bench. Not both. There should have been one more second row/prop on the bench to allow the forwards to rest more

Would an extra forward have been worth 12 points start to offset mistakes by our backs?

Mistakes happen in any game, although not as stupid as Bai's, but certainly the same as Calderwoods. Hall failed to collect a difficult kick on Friday.

I think an extra forward may have given us a better platform. It may not have though. None of us are gifted enough to know how the game would have panned out.

I am sorry but Dunneman was selected to play hooker which makes him a forward. His role throughout that year, given Diskin's injury, was hooker.

Its' the same way that James Roby plays hooker, having once been a half back.

A hooker is a forward.

I think you should re-read TVOC's stats if you think hookers don't make metres. In fact, the role of the impact hooker, is to come off the bench and make metres. Its' a role one time half back James Roby earned man of steel playing.

Why should there have been one more 2nd rower on the bench? Is having Mcguire on there not effectively the same, given that his introduction would allow Sinfield to slot back into the pack?