No point in answering that question until the season is over.
Getting to a cup final each year is a level of success, and financially is good. We can't expect silverware every season but we can expect to be fighting for honours each season. We were up there in the late last for most of the season, then the opportunity to win a better piece of silverware came along which we took. We sacrificed the shield for the cup. Fair enough for me.

Until the payoffs are over, we can't judge the season as a whole.

I do look forward to next season with a better format which should result in teams taking the , league more seriously. But the current format has allowed teams especially leeds to take short cuts, and in the main is been quite successful. Next season is a newformat and a new approach will be needed.

This season is still not over, so let's see what the next 5 weeks have to offer

I'm assuming dearest William is including Saints, Wigan, Warrington & Huddersfield.
I get the numbers at:

[u2011-2014 SL regular rounds[/u (including Magic Weekend)
Played - 34
Won - 8
Drawn - 2
Lost - 24

[uChallenge Cup games [/u(including Final)
Played - 6
Won - 3
Lost - 3

[uSL Playoffs[/u (including Final)
Played - 8
Won - 6
Lost - 2

It breaks down as:
v Wigan
SL rounds:
Played 10 - Won 3 - Drawn 1 - Lost 6

Cup:
Played 2 - Won 1 - Lost 1

SL playoffs:
Played 2 - Won 1 - Lost 1

v St Helens
SL rounds:
Played 8 - Won 1 - Lost 7

Cup:
Played 1 - Won 1

SL playoffs:
Played 2 - Won 2

v Warrington
SL rounds:
Played 8 - Won 3 - Lost 5

Cup:
Played 2 - Won 1 - Lost 1

SL playoffs:
Played 3 - Won 2 - Lost 1

v Huddersfield
SL rounds:
Played 8 - Won 1 - Drawn 1 - Lost 6

Cup:
Played 1 - Lost 1

SL playoffs:
Played 1 - Won 1

Just had a look at the Wire board, apparently Ben Westwood is out for a month and will be a push to feature at all in the playoffs. Add to it Simon Grix suffered that horrible looking leg break that's another rival who has injury woes for the run-in.

William Provocorn style League table for SL playoffs 2004-2013:
1. Leeds P20 W14 L6 = 28 = 70%
2. Saints P18 W9 L9 = 18 = 50%
3. Wigan P14 W6 L8 = 12 = 43%
4. Wire P11 W5 L6 = 10 = 45%
5. Hudds P7 W1 L6 = 2 = 14%

League table for SL Era Play-Offs 1998-2013:

1. Wigan P41 W26 L15 = 52 = 63% (Avg Rst 24 - 19)

2. St Helens P40 W25 L15 = 50 = 63% (Avg Rst 23 - 19)

3. Leeds P41 W24 L17 = 48 = 59% (Avg Rst 22 - 20)

4. Bradford P23 W14 L9 = 28 = 61% (Avg Rst 28 - 1icon_cool.gif

5. Warrington P16 W6 L10 = 12 = 38% (Avg Rst 21 - 26)

6. Hull P17 W5 L12 = 10 = 29% (Avg Rst 18 - 27)

7. Les Catalans P10 W4 L6 = 8 = 40% (Avg Rst 22 - 24)

8. Huddersfield P12 W3 L9 = 6 = 25% (Avg Rst 20 - 27)

Grand Final Wins

Leeds = 6

Saints = 4
Wigan = 3
Warrington = 0
Hudds = 0
Castleford = 0

Coaches wins with current club

McDermott = 2

Wane = 1
Smith = 0
Brown = 0
Anderson = 0
Powell = 0

I don't quite get the doom and gloom about this. Before the seaosn started if you'd said we won the CC and did nothing in the league I'd have taken that. As it happens we also beat - quite convincingly - 2 of the big names in that win, plus Cas in the final. That suggests to me that when everyone's fit and focused we have a good chance against anyone in the play offs.

The main question mark is whether the players are up for the work required to achieve the double. They've talked about the CC for years, it clearly became the holy grail to some of the players, and all it will take is one or two to be satsfied with the CC for us not to be at the races when it counts.

Whilst I hope they can challenge for the Championship, I won't lose any sleep if they don't make it.

Next year will be a new format, and I think Leeds will be a very different proposition without the CC monkey on their back.

We have the advantage of being the only one of the 8 with nothing to play for next week, let them all go hell for leather while we sit abck and rest most of the players next week. Then the season really starts

I think you missed my point. You showed the losses as a positive, due to them all been fairly close. My point was the wins are also that way, we had the worst attack of the top seven teams. If our attack was better, like the other top seven teams, those losses probably wouldn't have been losses.

People have centred far too much on the cup as the reason for the poor league form, that was why I said scrapping barrel of excuses. I don't accept it was the reason, which is what I have kept repeating in this thread. Those stats on points scored, and your close losses list highlights that.

Like said earlier, one off matches we can win, like the play offs, but managing a 27 round league campaign is something we have struggled with over last few years. And no one is convincing me it's intentional.

I think the real problem is that the players have been so successful, that they just struggle to get themselves 'up' for the fairly meaningless regular season games. They know they'll be in the 8, and with their history and big game experience, they know they can win it from anywhere.

I think the fact that we turn in our worst performances against teams like London, Wakefield, Bradford and Salford says it all. We play a lot worse in those matches than against any of the big boys, and it's because that sort of match seems 'beneath' the level of game that our players get up for.

The big problem with that is that fans are paying the same amount to watch a half d performance against a Wakey, London etc as they are to see the bigger games.

How many GF's have Saints lost - let's not forget GF is the pinnacle of RL in the Northern Hemisphere - has that changed the way they approach the game?

Everyone on here keeps saying Leeds can beat anyone on any given day - you have to believe that now!! McDermott's team selection for Wakefield, Bradford and London were wrong simple and the is my point about amateur hour, going in to games without a regular centre is bonkers. I get all the points about losing the CC but a club the size of Leeds should have been able to mange their resources sufficiently well enough to beat the two relegated sides.

The question still remains how have a club like Castleford with significantly less resources available managed to reach the CC final and finish where they have in the league - it shows it is possible.

These guys are elite players who play rugby for a living - part of that is being able to maintain performance levels regardless of mental and physical fatigue. You cannot compare that to you and I knocking a white ball round a golf course. Why are the pro golfers so good - natural ability but a huge amount of practise - there will not be a situation on the course that they haven't practised hundreds/thousands of times, same goes for rugby players.

I completely disagree. I don't think for one minute the players treat it that low. Our problem comes with regards fringe/squad players and the way they are used. All of them know, whether they put in a great performance or not, if player A or player B are back the week after, then they are out of the team. There is absolutely no incentive for a fringe/squad player to excel. It is when we get to using this that attitude levels change.

Look back a few years at squad players, and there was a completely different attitude and squad management of them.

This is true. The situations are different. Excepting that the elite sportsmen are (except JP) still human. They do everything to a much higher standard than we do. But, nobody can maintain their highest level of performance all the time. And it's only your performance relative to the other team, also full of elite sportsmen, that matters. I imagine (I haven't checked, I hate golf) that even top golfers have bad rounds. Both mental and physical condition play a party in that.

In many ways though we are a victim of our success. Our players have shown that they are capable of performing on the big stage, with a big game mentality. They have been loyal to the club for 10+ years. The young players are being brought in gradually, but as yet are still not overtaking their more senior colleagues. When JJB was out Walters came in and did a damn fine job, and many questions were raised as to whether JJB would get his spot back, but he has come back and been one of our top performers over that period. Likewise McGuire, who many including myself thought was finished, produced massive performances in the semi and final.
When players have got 10 years of pedigree, and are still capable of top performances its very hard to rotate players into their spot, especially in the pivots where we have forty years worth of top level big game winning experience

The selection may have been wrong for that game, but in the context of the season its still not possible to say.

Leeds ran out of juice last year, and McDermott is slated despite his highest finish (and Leeds' highest for 4 years).

This year he has rotated his squad all season, given increased game time to fringe players, and lost a few games to lower rabble teams. He has however won a trophy, one that the squad desperately wanted. A lower league position was the sacrifice. If we get to the GF, I don't think you can say that two points lost the week before Wembley has any significance.

Point very well made - and I also think that is a major contributor - the fringe/young players do not come in and put in performances that demand they keep their position, and I'd agree, a big reason for that is that even if they did put in those sort of performances, it seems at times it doesn't make a difference. That said, none of them have consistently put in good performances to force McD's hand.

But I do think it's a mixture of both our points, as a fringe players ability to come in and give good performances is made more difficult by playing alongside our senior players who aren't mentally 'up'.

And I can tell you 100% from private conversations with a number of our senior players, they do struggle to get 'up' for those games. As an example, Danny McGuire wrote something on twitter a while ago to a Hudds fan after they'd beaten us in the league that 'it was ok, we'd beat them when it matters'. That absolutely is the mentality!

I don't think we have a team that's capable of competing in cup, league and play offs. Too many players who are simply too old, too knackered and too mentally jaded to contest every game.

Gotcha's point about management of the fringe players holds true, I think. I'm sure there are coaches who'd approach things differently. However, to McDermott's credit, he's come up with a way of playing where we're able to utilise two legendary halves who now lack any pace whatsoever. Inevitably, this reduces our attacking options but a motivated and experienced defence can nullify this limitation - but only when our defence is at the very peak of its game. I'll settle for this - I believe McGuire and Sinfield have given sufficient to this team over the years to be given the chance to retire on their terms.

Can quite understand the views of others who are less than happy with this approach though.

FWIW I'm not as sanguine as some that the side will feature in the top four next season. I simply don't see why the problems in the league that have bedevilled McDermott's tenure should evaporate in the future. If the team was capable of a successful 27 (or however many) game league campaign I think we'd have seen at least some evidence of it.

Being elite players dosnt make them machines

I agree but if they cannot perform the skills under pressure/fatigue where are the benefits of full time training?

McDermott got slated because he played players like JJB with potentially career ending injuries. If we don't get to OT perhaps the losses to Bradford and London will have had some significance in that? Leeds will have at least two away games against sides they haven't beaten away from home this season. Finishing 6th is definitely a handicap in getting to OT.

The losses to Bradford and London were not because of poor team selections - it was 100% attitude! The team on the park were more than a match for their counterparts, and should really have won both games by plenty (and I mean no disrespect to London or Bradford) - poor attitude kept both teams in those games and ultimately were our downfall. Minds on Wembley is the main excuse thrown up for this, but we lose games like them every year - our senior players (Peacock apart) simply do not generally perform against lower teams in insignificant games.

There's some truth in that. The team against London was good enough to win for 60 minutes. But switched off for the last quarter.