I know what the question was and the underlying tone of your post was very clear too which is why I responded the way I did.
I suggest you need to brush up on your own comprehension skills..

And if people comment on what they've seen and aren't overally/not critical then the usual come charging out at them too.

I didn't realise the term "doom mongers" would've upset people so much. But come on now let's not pretend its all one way traffic with the 'positive' ones 'attacking' the 'negative' ones and nothing going the other way in return. For every "doom monger" or "glass half empty" their has been a "rose-tinted" or "blind loyalty" aimed at someone whose view is contradictory to certain posters.

The doom mongers term isn't even being used in relation to peoples view on the games that we've played, it's in relation to their view regarding the future. It seems that when thinking about how our season will unfold they only seem to look at the defeats to come to their conclusion (which then inevitably spells doom for the team). When it's pointed out the games that we've won as a pointer to what we could achieve this year their are posters who often put the main reasoning down to our wins as chiefly because the opposition played poor.

Leeds beat Hudds in the cup....."yeah but only because Hudds were so poor"
Leeds beat Saints away comfortably....."yeah but only because Saints were so poor"
Leeds beat Wigan at home....."yeah but only because Wigan were so poor"

"They'll all up their game and beat us!"

Aye, I can't comprehend what I typed, but you can tell the underlying tone of it.

Want a rear-view mirror for that backtrack?

Like I said, time to brush up on your comprehension skills, then re-read my last post.

And I don't backtrack like some (you, often). I'll happily admit to being wrong, on the rare occasion it happens.

Well put and pretty much sums up my take on our little mid season blip, which imo is all it is and why i have refrained from commenting on the numerous doom and gloom threads elsewhere.

I saw more than enough to convince me we are a top side when we field a or close to full strength side like earlier in the year (and i still don't think we put in a complete 80 minutes performance then). Bottom line, far too early to knee jerk.

I never said you claimed Leeds would go unbeaten - as Gilder says your reading or comprehension skills need polishing up. I predicted at the start of the season Leeds to finish 5th you are confident they will finish top. I am not writing them off all I am saying is things need to improve if your aspirations for the team are to be met. I have consistently said the games after the split will determine where Leeds finish. Seven games of higher intensity week after week will test this ageing thin squad. They had a cushion that should have seen them into the top four that cushion is disappearing as the form has worsened. The games against Saints and Wigan will be crucial

Saints injuries have been severe - Lomax is out for the season, Walsh has played 5 games - Leeds are struggling with Hardaker missing a couple of games just imagine if he had missed 80% of the season and McGuire had played 5 games all year? Catalans a team I also predicted to finish above Leeds have also been unable to get Carney on the field if they do and they can get him fit they will be a strong team.

I don't need to make things up to make myself feel superior - this is a discussion board, it is entertainment not life and death. Nobody is right or wrong it is just about opinions/debate.

You can't have it both ways - when they lose you always have an excuse:

Leeds lost to Castleford because of a short turn round
Leeds lost to Widnes because they saved Sinfield for the CC
Leeds lost to Warrington because Bentham never gives us anything
Leeds lost to Wigan because of injuries

It is never because Leeds weren't good enough or they were beat by a better side

Etc, Etc

On Saints I would say Walsh is pretty crucial unless you think they are the only side that don't really need a quality half back? Take McGuire out of the Leeds side and you would really notice a difference. He only had three assists on Thursday (sic)!!

Oh look, another patronising, negative nancy.

Read the quote below, then please go join Andy Gilder at comprehension class...



Can't be bothered with the rest of your post, it's just more of your one eyed doom mongering.
At least there's no mention of how much better than us Wigan & Wire are though... Maybe next week if they win a game eh?

Why did Wigan get blown away by Catalans, how come Wire can't buy a win?
How come Saints beat Wigan despite having the worst injury list in SL history?

etc etc.

Ermmm no

I didn't say we lost to Castleford souley because of the short turnaround, I said it should be factored into the debate of the loss.

Didn't say we lost to Widnes because Sinfield was sbsent but highlighted that it was significant.

I highlighted Bentham doesn't award us much after the Wigan game (not Warrington) didn't actually blame him, just pointed out a history of him not awarding us much (a nod to how he refs games really)

With regards to injuries in the Cas match. Handley and Sutcliffe had a key hand in 24 of the 31 points we conceded.....if you can honestly sit there and say we'd have conceded as many with Briscoe and Hardaker then fair enough......but I think you'll find most don't agree with that so hence the pointing out the significance of injuries.

I've also freely admitted that we weren't good enough vs Cas. Hell I even said after we had that classy 2nd half showing against Hull that most got carried away with that the 1st half was cause for concern.

All players make errors. To say Brisco wouldn't have made the error Handley did at the end is daft. He probably wouldn't have but he could have made an equally key error at another time, like last minute in a play off.

I think its more the injuries hitting on very similar positions which is stretching us, but the style with which we were playing earlier in the season has deserted us

Erm yes as you have just shown there are always reasons other than perhaps this team is no longer strong enough.

To suggest Handley and Sutcliffe were responsible for 24 points is simply desperation on your part. The point about Briscoe has already been answered as for Hardaker the Wigan game at Magic highlighted he still has some issues defensively

While some Leeds fans attempt to play fantasy RL on here to mitigate a defeat against a team forced to rebuild in key positions during the off season - what outcome do they reach when Castleford also get to play their injured full back and winger?

Not that I imagine they would consider such a thing.

I don't visit here as much as I used to but I don't recall you ever behaving like a di ck before.

What's changed?

Right so whenever we lose a game we can't debate about incidents in the game, errors made, players missing and how that effected us etc. Instead after every loss we just come on here and say it's because the team is no longer strong enough.

What was that people were saying about trying to change other people's views?



How is discussing the reasoning why we conceded tries "desperation"?' Isn't it a bit hypocritical as well considering you and many others pointed at the Cuthbertson knock on that lead to the drop goal as a key issue? So why can't I do that with the tries?



Only you apparently think Hardaker has defensive issues, doesn't make it a fact though. And maybe they don't stop all 4 tries being scored, but if they stop two of them then that's still enough for the win.

Nothing. It happens when you're talked down to by people who seemingly spend their whole lives moaning, backtracking and generally being very hypocritical.

A few weeks ago, Phil Clarke was saying the Rhinos had re-invented the way Rugby League was played. This week everyone here is saying we're an ill-coached bunch of -heads...

If all these demi-gods of reason are at odds, where oh where do I go for the Truth??

Kettle and pot I think!!

Nobody is suggesting debate is not allowed the point is you were berating others for making excuses when Leeds win I was merely pointing out your similar defence when they lose. You cannot have it both ways.

The desperation point was blaming Handley and Sutcliffe for 4 of the tries and to suggest Hardaker and Briscoe would have played immactulate games when there is tangible contra-evidence to the point.

If Sutcliffe was at fault for the tries against Cas then Hardaker was equally at fault against Wigan again you can't have it both ways

Difference between talking about errors made, players missing, etc than it is to just say we won because the opposition played rubbish.



I pointed out there involvement in the tries we conceded. If I can't do that then why can you blame Hardaker for those against Wigan and I can't?

"You can't have it both ways"



Also never said they'd have immaculate games but thinking that Hardaker wouldn't have allowed the 40/20 (which he's very good preventing) or Briscoe wouldn't have dropped that kick or wrongly drifted in for the 4th Cas try isn't exactly that far fetched now is.



Difference is most would agree that his attempt on Millington was very poor and that Hardaker would've stopped the 40/20. Whereas only you and Hardaker other constant critic think he was at fault for the tries against Wigan, as you usually do find him at fault most weeks convientely.

People disagreed with you that Hardaker was at fault based on what they saw when watching the tries. You're not saying I'm wrong about Handley and Sutcliffe not doing good enough for those tries, you're just saying I can't point it out because it's desperation and that I should be saying the team isn't strong enough anymore instead.

Notice the key difference?

Not once have you suggested that Leeds have been out played - both games against Warrington this was the case, your excuse was Bentham - notice a key difference?

Briscoe has proved his frailty so to suggest he wouldn't have dropped a ball close to his own line isn't backed up by reality? As for Hardaker there have been tries this season where forwards have run over him too and he has conceded 40/20's so who is to say he would have stopped Millington either? So suggesting they would have not prevented either is not so far fetched either when you base it on evidence not on blind obedience!!

Difficult to argue Handley was at fault not sure Sutcliffe was the sole contributor to the Millington try.


Those two incidents count for 12 points which other errors did they make that count for the other 12?

Some disagreed some agreed about Hardaker and the Wigan game especially the Williams try - that is debate.

I can't offer you directions to the true path but I know I definitely wouldn't start with Phil Clarke.

I notice that blaming Bentham for both Warrington defeats would be quite a stretch......considering James Child was the ref at Headingley. That you've taken me expressing an opinion on Bentham as me blaming him for the defeats is your mistake not mine.



Yes because Briscoe dropped that ball vs Catalans it must mean he'll drop everything else that comes near him.



Ok so when you point out the times Hardaker hasn't stopped something it's "evidence".....when I point out the number of times he has stopped attackers and 40/20 it's "blind obedience"........you really are quite ridiclous.



Sutcliffe not stopping the 40/20 that lead to the scrum for the 2nd score and Handley coming in when McGuire had his guy covered allowing Solomona the walk in just after halftime. As I said before they might not have stopped all 4 but I back them that they stopped at least 2 of them which was the difference between a win and a loss.



Seemed like the only two to agree was yourself and Juan but then again you two always feel everything is Hardaker's fault. Surprised you two haven't blamed him for 9/11 or the death of Princess Diana.

Personally I think our first choice FB and RW who are of International standard would've done better than a makeshift FB and a young winger everybody agrees is showing the effects of his longer than expected run in the first team. Hardly the craziest suggestion but seems unacceptable to you and that I need to instead just say we are completely sh*t and that's why we lose games.

I don't agree with your constant excuses for defeats, but I do agree with the above. Handley was as clearly at fault for the Cas try at start of second half as he was for the last. Sutcliffes efforts for the 40/20 and the tackle on Millington were poor.

I also agree with tvoc's suttle dig though, which gets lost on some posters who continually defend the team. Cas were also missing their first choice fullback and winger too.