I concur.

BUT I bet Singleton and Robbie Ward still felt valued members of the squad (probably imminently at another club mind)

That was Leeds' 627th game of the SL Era where four substitutes are permitted on the bench - total excludes the 1996 Challenge Cup which were the final games with only two. After a quick scan through the spreadsheet last night's game appears to be the only time any Leeds coach has seen fit to leave 50% of them unused in any single game.

Peacock, great player though he undoubtedly is, was at fault from marker for the St Helens opening try on 62 minutes. Despite being a man down when the points eventually came, they came through the middle. Would fresh bodies have made a difference ..... who knows.

down to 12 for a long time, players running on empty. whichever way you look at it, its bloody odd to only use 2 replacements

If a Coach doesn't "trust" his subs why select them?
Or are you implying the Coach thought we would be that far in front it wouldn't matter how they would have to defend?
Sorry JC that's ridiculous as for comparisons with Singleton and Kirke did you miss the Wire away game or has Kirke never missed a tackle?

When BMD was asked the same question in an interview after the game, he appeared stunned, and asked the reporter what did he actually mean! His eventual answer was less than convincing...."Delaney is a machine....JJB is a machine.....Ablett is a machine....no need to replace them!"

Perhaps Garry will invite him over for Sunday lunch, and gently explain why the Rules allow 4 subs in the first place, and the benefits of using them, when on field situations require a small deviation from the pre planned strategies.

That said, the team were excellent up to the 60 minute mark, and I saw nothing in the Saints performance that will cause us any problems in the Play Offs.

Your view is based on an assumption there is some rule that you have to use all your subs or that like sheep you follow what others do. If you can acknowledge for one minute that subs can be used just to give your first choices a very short breather then perhaps you can also consider that subs can also be used just as cover if you have first choices that are capable of long minutes and can be rotated to give those same short breaks.

IMO had Moon not been sent off Mac would have used all his subs. However the situation changed and gaining a lead yet having a man short meant he needed his best and most reliable defenders on the field for the most time. Aiton had a fine game and made 46 tackles so to replace him with young Robbie was a big risk. Similarly with a lead to defend against a big pack Singleton is a bit lightweight and still has a bit to learn on defense. So IMO it was quite reasonable to use his interchanges to rotate his first choices. As he said after the match JJB, Ablett, Delaney & Bailey don't need much rest and of course neither does JP.

If you were to have used all the subs, at what point would you have used them? Had it been earlier it could well have cost our lead earlier as our first choices were doing a remarkable job. Had you used them late in the game the same applies.

IMO apart from the obvious of having a man down, the game actually swung on several errors that lost us possession, added to some dodgy decisions by the officials and compounded by a much better 2nd half performance from the Saints. Even with all this had Sinfield taken a drop goal opportunity we could have come out with a point.

Incomprehensible to you perhaps. And you may also have a picture of him on your wall that you stick pins in!

Well the real answer isn't one that should be said out loud to a press conference, which would basically be....

"Don't trust Singleton and R.Ward defensively enough in a 12 man defence"

Are you saying Singleton would have made the tackle on McCarthy-Scarsbrook that JP missed for their second try? As Sky's pundits pointed out in the PTB before their 2nd try Hardaker called Achurch to the other side leaving JP's side exposed. Roby spotted this and switched play back to where the gap had appeared. Hardaker made the same error in a recent game which pulled Bailey away leaving a gap for a try under the sticks.

The game changers were not caused by fatigue IMO but by lost possession from players who would not have been substituted - Briscoe, Watkins, Sutcliffe, Hardaker and JJB (who had a rest) add in some bad decisions from the officials and better tactics from Saints. But the real reason was it was 12 against 13 for much of the match.

My point of view is valid and no more ridiculous than your assumption that Singleton and R Ward would have made a difference.

So in your opinion JC fatigue played no part in that defeat when we played with 12 men for so long?
The extra work EVERY player had to put in closing the gaps ,chasing back etc had no effect whatsoever?
Disagree I can see the pov re-Ward(although don't agree with it) Aiton was superb but not Singleton that pack last night had more than one player blowing out of his arris at different points especially in 2nd half.
Would that have changed the end result? Well we will never know and I applaud the efforts of all involved but that was imo a mistake in team management.
Printer-If he doesn't trust the young lads completely then he shouldn't pick them imo they have to learn and be given time to learn.

Making a difference can be measured in different ways i.e would they getting on the field had a positive/negative effect from their efforts or for the players they replaced by giving them a breather and coming back fresher for the final 20?
Like I said I can see why R.Ward didn't get on but not Singleton even for 10 minutes.

Under normal circumstances, I would say the coach on the back of how he managed it last week deserves the benefit of any hearsay opinions.

However, it's not like this is the first time he has disregarded his squad, and not even close to the first time that he has been wrong with the decision. They say you learn from mistakes, and you do, so why is this elementary mistake not learned from, and yet happens far too often.

Out of interest, when this none picking subs has happened, how many points has he won, and how many lost?

Pure speculation on your part. He did rotate first choices with Achurch and Kylie.

We were a man short. That played the key part. The mistakes in giving away possession in the 2nd half were made by players who would not have been substituted. It was only a matter of time that they would find a gap if we allowed them near our line subs or not. The lost possession gave them the opportunities which they took with a much better 2nd half performance.



I do not believe Singleton would have stopped McCarthy-Scarsbrook had he been on for JP as we were too light on that side and Saints exploited it well.

You haved completely morphed into everything you criticize in others on here.

FWIW I also think the use of substitutes made no sense last night. Not only leaving 2 unused, but when he took Delaney off Delaney went nuts questioning why, and promptly returned to the fray 2 minutes later.

Furthermore, McD's press conference explanation in response to Phil Caplans perfectly reasonable question was back to his first season eccentric best, pretending not to understand the question and then implying Caplan meant something he blatently didn't.

I though/think it is odd not to have used 2 subs but agree fully with the above. How often do you see a side with a man sent off win in league...very very rarely (less so than say in football).

Whilst Brian Mac is not above criticism he must have had his reasons and I'm happy to wait until the end of the season to judge

As has been pointed out, Peacock was gassed and exposed for the first Saints try.

McDermott's decision making was baffling and eccentric, yet again, last night.

Juan Cornetto appears determined to blindly defend everything McDermott does and I value his opinions these days as little as the rabid McDemott Out mob.

I merely am putting an alternative opinion. I have explained why JP was exposed for their first try and gassed or not a sub would have done no better similarly exposed.

Your opinions have the value befitting of a country member of the an McDermott out mob ie: very low and easily baffled.

It's baffling because we don't know Mcdermott's true logic behind the decisions. If we knew his reasoning, we might be able to understand.

Clearly being reduced to 12 men must have changed something in Mcdermott's thinking, but from the outside looking in it's impossible to connect the dots of how going a man down may change your strategy to have 2 unused subs at a time when logic would normally dictate you make as much use of subs as possible.

This whole issue regarding subs is something that has evolved very gradually at leeds. It goes right back to the end of the smith era. But when you are winning a grand final, you watch the playback and realise one/2 of the subs only did 10 minutes, you don't really bat much of an eyelid do you? Even then we were in a situation where the subs were doing small minor stints. It coincides with the signings of peacock and leuluai, 2 players who's quality of output isn't lessened by quantity of minutes. Then as the squad has evolved we've ended up in a situation where it's become more important those players are on the field as long as possible.

There are intangibles involved. Things llike rhythm and momentum and i imagine those factor into these mcdermott gems.

Well that's cleared that up then........

Is a strange decision. However I cen see the logic of sticking with the trusted players, with singleton not as mobile defensively as he needs to be. I don't agree with the decision, but I can at least understand it

Nowt like blind faith to keep the masses obediently aligned

If McCarthy-Scarsbrook scored St Helens second try .... who scored their first ?

What I'm saying is 'who knows' whether Singleton would have done any better than Peacock in that situation. Anybody claiming to know the answer to that question is only offering an opinion on an unknown outcome.



That's debatable as in this instance it didn't appear to be Hardaker who was calling the late retreating defender (Achurch) across to the open side, so to couple that to a previous recollection could be a harsh call on the Leeds full-back.

Achurch staying on the shorter side may have equalled the numbers on that flank but only with the benefit of hindsight would that have been the correct action as St Helens were setting up for a play on the open side. It was a great call by Hohaia and quickly reacted to by Roby but the fact remains that it was Peacock who followed Bailey to their collective right at marker that opened up the chasm that the clever half-back sent McCarthy-Scarsbrook through. Even then the physically immense but perhaps mentally fatigued Peacock got an outstretched hand on to the try scorer's collar as the only man able to prevent a stroll in. Had Peacock done his job and stayed alert at marker than at least the try-scorer would have had someone to beat.

I'm tempted to give any professional player the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their primary function as marker but Peacock on that occasion got it wrong and McDermott had removed in from the fray before the following re-start, replacing him with Leuluai as Singleton continued his beat up and down in front of the North stand.



Points scored or conceded are the real game changers. Losing possession isn't helpful but unless points are conceded direct from the fumble these are situations you can and must still defend. Your analysis of the real reason for the loss doesn't acknowledge the fact that both tries Leeds conceded were up the guts - not as a result of being a man short somewhere out wide. I'd point to the opportunity Leeds created between the St Helens tries where setting and snapping over a drop-goal would have taken Leeds back out to a two score advantage but IIRC it ended with Leeds getting out of position on an edge and Sutcliffe picking and driving on the last. Great place to hand over possession and had Turner slotted the simple conversion narrowing the gap to four points then fine but the first conversion was missed handing Leeds an unexpected opportunity to perhaps crucially stretch the advantage again.

R. Ward was never going to play after Moon's sending off and I can understand why - defensive strength had to (and did) take priority over attacking creativity. Ward may have offered fresh legs and thus more possibilities on attack to Aiton had he come on for a while, but similarly would have made us more vulnerable in defence.

B McD couldn't have known Moon would have been sent off (and therefore did not cover this in the subs he had chosen). Had he known, I've no doubt Kirke would have been on the bench instead of Singleton, and had Kirke been on the bench, he would have been brought on and we wouldn't be having the discussion of 'why were 2 subs unused?' - only Robbie Ward would have been unused.

In a situation like Friday, the manager probably preferred tired players he felt he could trust defensively, rather than fresh players who he did not feel he could completely trust.

In continuation of my upward trend in appreciation of Kirke this last week, I do think had he been on the bench we would have stood a bit better chance of winning on Friday. Oh well.