Will and determination are rarely the difference on game day. Will and determination are what gets you to game day in the position to do the things necessary to win.

JJB isnt the most gifted player but his success and will to win isnt about what he does on in a match, its the things he does day in day out in training to get himself in to a place where he can do the things he needs to do on game day.

Its exactly the same with Sinfield and Peacock. Sinfield doesnt make that kick and another misses it, because Sinfield wants it more at that moment. Its because Sinfield wanted it more 2hrs after training when he was still out there practising.

I'd hope a player like Golding would do the same following dropped high kicks - spend extra time in training getting someone to kick bombs to him.

In the end after that sort of game its up to the individual to respond. Nathan Graham never recovered from being bombed at Wembley. Had he had more resilience and practiced his butt off there's physically no reason why he couldn't have overcome much of his issue with bombs. For whatever reason it pretty much ended his career. OTOH I have huge respect for Dixon at KR who had en even worse performance (he wasn't alone but as full back its more obvious) and yet seemed determined to get over it.

I agree with much of this but you have to be able to pull it out of the bag when it matters. McGuire is another player who is capable of raising his game when it matters - that isn't about training, he does it too often and 2003 he was teenager in his first year as pro, that's a mental attitude about personal standards/belief/desire to impact the game and a genuine not wanting to let your team mates down something JJB talks about a lot.

Golding will have fielded hundreds of bombs in training so he will have the technical ability just not that will/determination to perform that task when it mattered. Nathan Graham is one, Ben Crookes is another hopefully Golding is made of stronger stuff

The Golding drops didn't cost us the game on Friday. Infact, we were well in the game long after his mistakes which were in the first period so it shouldn't be getting compared with howlers that have cost big games and cup finals and ruined careers. He is still very young and raw and will never have experienced what he did on Friday, but the true test will be from now and how he responds. He could turn it into a positive, by going away and improving that side of his game and next time he is in that position (could be as early as tonight) deal with it better. Like i have said previously, Handley seems to have done just that and the players that have a serious future in the game usually find a way, hopefully Golding will.

Fact checker - Golding definitely dropped the first bomb of the second half. Got away with that one as Huddersfield lobbed a miss out pass wide which Watkins deflected into touch - or no doubt as some would tell you, Watkins missed a simple intercept and guaranteed four/six pointer.

Thanks, had forgotten that one.

The one that went straight between his hands just over his head? Yeah, add me to the "missed a simple intercept" column on that one.

Mind you, he couldn't catch passes from his own side on Friday so there wasn't much danger of him catching one from the opposition.

Spot on, he messed that up big time. Didn't go to deflect it at all, went for the simple catch and failed.

What I will change my mind on though is that he'd have gotten downfield if he caught it. He jumps for it and pretty much lands into Ormsby arms on landing so would've been tackled straight away..:::but at least we'd have had the ball back and not once again defending our line.

I've seen loads of those dropped. Depends very much on when you realize there is a chance you may be able to catch the ball. There is a reason you spend years telling kids when they start playing rugby to have their hands out, thumbs forward and eyes on the ball when receiving a pass. It's very harsh to criticize a defender for not making an intercept. He got hands on and defended the play, it he'd jumped out of the line, missed it and conceded a try then fair enough.

I didn't say he went to deflect it, I imagine he went to catch it. In order to catch it he was both feet off the ground, arms extended above his head and landed into Gene Ormsby's tackle within ten of the Leeds line. If that was the incident described elsewhere as Watkins missing an easy try scoring opportunity then I'd respectfully disagree.

So he did miss a simple catch then?

As for the rest of your post, you make it sound like he was in a RU line out. The pass wasn't some crisp one-man missed out cut out pass, it was a big unnecessary looping pass that missed out 3 guys and Watkins could've made a brew whilst waiting for it to reach him. Ormsby had time to realise it wasn't going to reach him and adjust himself to be ready to tackle Watkins but Watkins fluffed his lines.

Golding was a lot better last night. Was a brave display after last week.

And the subject of this thread looks better every week. On our first try in particular I didn't notice a lack of pace.

Lilley's not lightning quick but he's not as slow as some. He looks to have most of the basic the elements of a very good halfback. He can pass and kick, which puts him about 50% better than most British halfbacks at his age. Interceptions also smack very much of someone who can read play.

What he doesn't have is an experienced partner, or any experience at all of playing in a decent team. Three of his games last year were bad losses during the tired run at the end of the season. Judging any of the younger players on this year's performances is really harsh. There are a bunch of far more experienced players who ought to be damned on the basis of what they've dished out this year before you get anywhere near criticising the likes of Lilley, Golding, Handley and even Sutcliffe.

I was thinking about Sutcliffe and wondering whether maybe he should move to centre for a year or so. John Holmes took years to become a regular 6, as did Schofield and others before him. Again I'd say Sutcliffe has the makings of a class 6, but it's a big ask for him to try to learn in such a poor environment. He has less excuses than Lilley, but not by much IMO.

Ellery, John Joyner are others, who ended up as loose forwards, which is where I would see Sutcliffe naturally developing into, if it hadn't become a third prop.

I fully agree with this. I have long argued that Sutcliffe's skill set is best suited to centre or perhaps fullback. I believe it was wrong to expect Sutcliffe to take on Sinfield's pivotal role and that his replacement should have been our number one priority even if it meant using the marquee allowance.

Lilley to my mind has always looked a natural half back and deserves to play alongside a senior partner. I think if we are to take any positives from the season so far it is with the way the youngsters Lilley, Golding, Handley and Mullally have stepped up to the plate which as you point out is in contrast to the very disappointing Watkins, Hardaker, Hall, Ablett, Achurch and Falloon.

So squad changes are needed rather like Warrington made when they hit similar transition circumstances.

What Leeds need and what Leeds get has long been a theme.

You only appear to have recognised the issue as the chickens have come home to roost and were one of the first in line to shoot down those prepared to question the failings and past cheap options being taken by the CEO.

Better late than never.

I know you were sulking last year when we were topping the table, playing attractive rugby and winning the treble which put a stop to your negative postings for a while. But you did come out of hiding to take a swipe at the coach etc in our bad patch just after the Wembley Cup win so I know you were reading this forum. Therefore you should know I have not only "recognised the issue as the chickens have come home to roost" as you should have read my posts last year where I clearly stated our recruitment needs IMO.

In August Gotcha made the point that Sutcliffe had not shown himself "capable of doing what Sinfield does"

I replied that replacing Sinfield was our biggest problem saying:

[i"Sinfield's move to RU seemed to come out of the blue and has thrown Sutcliffe in perhaps a year too soon. Sutty has undoubted talent but as you say has not yet shown the ability to control a game or make match winning goal kicks. So IMO we need a proven controller and goal kicker if only for a short term to see if Sutcliffe is able to step up. If these missing skills have to be split between more than one player, as per JP, then so be it if the budget allows"[/i

When it was pointed out that the Sutcliffe/McGuire partnership was promising I also said

[i"Promising yes but we need more than promising. McGuire has had an excellent season but without a replacement for Sinny's we do not had a proven game manager or goal kicker and that could be the difference in our success next year"[/i

and also in August last year speaking of JP's replacements:

[i"All this could be wasted without a game manager and goal kicker to win us the tight games. This need not be a Thurston as such a signing may not be available however we have to accept that to go with Sutcliffe will be a gamble."[/i

and regarding the Brierley saga:
[i
"Brierley has a lot of talent but is essentially a runner who would fill a young DM role. Burrow, Sutcliffe and Mags are also primarily runners with the latter developing his creative passing skills. But none of these can replace Sinfield's leadership, game management and kicking abilities. If we were to sign Cameron Smith this would fulfill our needs totally but as this is unlikely then IMO we need both a hooker and a controlling half back who can kick."[/i

and in September:

[i"We need a quality hooker and another halfback. Our pack is looking good but unless we replace the loss of Sinfield's key game management and kicking skills we will suffer. Sutcliffe has shown great promise but not as a game manager or high percentage kicker. Of course he will improve in these areas but he does not look a natural 'give me the ball - I will sort it' type of player. Also he has had a serious injury which could have a detrimental effect on his game.

So IMO a proven controlling half back is required perhaps on a short term contract to allow Sutcliffe, Lilley & Golding to develop."[/i

and

[i" Neither am I suggesting some mediocre off contract import. Like the replacement of Aiton we need quality. However as it stands we have invested in the JP & Kylie replacements which could be wasted if we do not invest in Sinfield's replacement. Just look at the hullabaloo on here over losing the game management abilities of Sinfield while he has been playing at hooker.

Under the new extended season it is going to be important to rotate not just forwards but backs too. With a new quality half back we could still give plenty of game time to Sutcliffe, Lilley and Golding giving the ageing McGuire & Burrow plenty of rests. Which of the aforementioned are proven game managers?

Unless the new hooker is also a game manager then yes we do need a controlling quality halfback next year"[/i

So not a case of better late than never as I clearly pointed out the dangers of taking a risk with game management by not getting our recruitment priorities right.

McGuire's fitness was the gamble. Had we signed a journeyman Aussie to play alongside McGuire and McGuire was fit we'd be hearing no end about why Sutcliffe and/or Lilley ought to be given more of a go.

Sinfield's move to RU was a year earlier than planned. GH took a punt that Sutcliffe/McGuire would work as well as it did at times early last year and develop further. It hasn't worked out that way but TBH even with the benefit of hindsight I don't think it was entirely the wrong call.

As it is we've been caught out, but the problems at halfback have been magnified by dire performances elsewhere. If our defence wasn't a complete sieve for example the halfbacks would be under far less pressure to create points. As it is we've averaged 27 points against in every game - last year we only managed to average 31 per game in a Treble winning year with champagne rugby played for parts of the year.

Glad someone was keeping up the good fight against the enemy/s within while I was on my apparent year long 'sulk'. Fancy knowing what an historic year Leeds were about to have and keeping it to myself.

Hope somebody fulfilled my other duties on here by welcoming your (Juan not Brisbane) conversion on the need for a traditional hooker and how Burrow was now best utilised after avoiding the opening exchanges - had I been actively contributing on here that stubborn mule may have prevented such an obvious move.

Some good stuff there and you'll be happy to hear some I would have happily argued against - had I not been sulking obviously.

Burrow's role going forward has to be one of the main issues for review. If he stays then we have to accept and work round his limitations in defence, whether he starts or comes off the bench.

Thinking about it, I have to say the criticism of both our young halves is very harsh. If we think about it, most games this year we have scored enough points to win the game. Sure they could have forced repeat sets etc but unfortunately game management is the one skill in a half it takes longest to learn.

Our problems this year have been defensive, I can count 5 games this year where we would have won if our defence had turned up.

That is more likely to be fixed by a new hooker than a new half.

Let's not forget that halves still need to tackle when called upon to do so. It may not be their primary role but it's not something they can escape or be protected from entirely.

I imagine if Leeds stick with Lilley and Sutcliffe in two or three years time they'll be the new cornerstones. Sinfield once used the bamboo analogy and it's one that works well here. Will Leeds be prepared to wait though - they haven't always been with others and will need a compliant supporter base prepared to continue to shell out while finding their way.

Of course they could just ditch the coach and everything will be hunky dory in the morning.

We've scored fewer points than anyone else. Our poor attack is one of the main reasons our defence is under so much pressure. Good defence can be a form of attack, we are mostly on the back foot when defending, and you are right, a real hooker would perhaps plug some of the holed up the middle.

Warrington and Wakey at home, Salford and Cas away. All games we didn't concede a bad enough total that we couldn't have bettered, but we didn't. I think their was a stat after the Salford loss that we'd have 9 tryless halfs so far this season. I suppose in recent weeks whilst the attack still has plenty of room for improvement we've stopped having those 40/50 mins periods without a try.

See I think the exact opposite to you, Wakey, Cas, Wire Hudds times 2 plus Saints and Catalans are all games where we've scored enough points to win.

We shouldn't and can't afford to have the attitude of well we'll just score more than you.

It's especially worrying as you'd think injuries are more of an excuse for poor offence rather than defence.