I for one was rooting for the Rhinos last night!! The Rhinos should have pinched it in the last 10. Leeds are not one of my loves of rugby league but they are Yorkshire and so am I. WELL DONE LEEDS RHINOS!!!!!!

Thought Vickery did ok considering it was his first run out after his injury(in such a big game), Achurch was disappoiting......pretty much a poor mans Kirke (and thats not a knock on Ian). I was once again a little worried about McShanes turnstyle tackling technique for the very poor try we gave up. I've seen that hands on shoulder getting brushed off easily lazy effort far too often already in his limited career here.

McDermott doesn't trust McShane. After his missed tackle at the start of the first half (for which Achurch was equally culpable) he was subbed and not used again. As Melbourne had game planned to shut down Kev this meant all the creativity had to come from McGuire with Burrow stuck at dummy half and Danny could have used some help.

Overall, great game, great effort and if only Super League games were like that every week.

Firstly well done to Melbourne who were the best team on the night. But Leeds weren't that far behind and (in hindsight) had we taken the 2 penalties we would have draw. Both teams made a few too many mistakes and not at their sharpest on attack but on any other day Burrow and Mags would have scored and we would have been 12 up at half time.

IMO JP was the best forward on the pitch with an immense effort. Delaney and JJB were the equal of any of the Storm pack and Ward is coming on fine and justified the coaches starting selections. Watkins playing out of position looked dangerous and although Ablett put in his usual sterling effort I felt Leeds lacked Watkins skills in the centre and the loss of Hardaker was crucial to the outcome. Did Vickery get a pass from Ablett?

Cam Smith is a great player but I thought we handled him well. Their real star who made the difference was Cooper Cronk.

Melbourne came very well prepared and really wanted to win. I don't buy this not having had a game business. Our best form this season was our first match and the subsequent matches have cost us injuries and disruption.

McShane and Achurch were not up to speed and their combined poor defence was crucial as it gave them a soft score and the momentum for a quick follow up score. I don't think it would have made much difference had Clarkson played more time as the starting back three offer more (and were 3 of our best players) and were not lacking in energy either.

All in all while not being at our best we came so close to winning it. Thats sport.

Funny, I told you that 12 months ago



I wouldn't trust him after last nights effort, or any other big game I've seen him play in either. His defence is average, but his tackling technique is worse, and that's before we get going on his distribution and taking wrong options.

IMO he's not got enough for a top 8 team, kind of explains it all when he didn't stand out in last years Widnes team.

CMR-Disagree re-Mcshanes distribution and option taking he also did well enough last year against Manly.
His distribution is way above Burrows 70% pass to ankles and sharper imo and he's not as bad as you suggest with his reading of the options on offer.
Also Widnes wanted him to stay and 99% of their fans thought he was avery good 9.
Last night wasn't his greatest but he wasn't the only 1 at fault for Bromwichs try either.

I left the ground feeling very proud of the boys last night. Didnt give up and played a part in a enthralling game of Rugby League

Heard some say that it's a shame we were missing Hardaker but if you think Watkins and Ablett and the rejigged back-row including Ward did really well then the real lost was more Bailey. He might be disliked and not rated by many RL fans but he would've offered us a lot more coming off the bench at prop than Achurch. Don't know if it was because he'd only just come back from injury but Ablett seemed reluctant to use Vickery and thats not usually what you get when Ablett plays at centre. We also seemed happier to spread it wide in our own half/near the half way line in the first half but in the 2nd half we didn't go to Melbourne's weakest area of the edges enough IMO considering the success we were starting to have there and instead got a bit too much down the middle around the same field position.

Predicted Watkins would go very good at FB in attack (which he did) but worried about kicks to him, he unfortunately made a mess of a high bomb and the toe into touch was crucial at such a late stage. The lack of use of Clarkson (9 mins) is a strange one, on one hand the back rowers were all playing well but I can't see the logic of giving someone so little time, it will have been nearly 2 hours since the proper warm-up until he came on and he's got to get up to game speed in under 10 mins?

It's a shame he couldn't give Peacock more of a breather but he obviously felt that he couldn't keep Achurch out there any longer, same goes for McShane. That could've give us more options on the last tackle in the 2nd half with Burrow dropping back (or even McShane as he can kick too) but the Bromwich try was a shocker to give away. Add to this that I saw McGuire limpimg at times in the 2nd half then I think we ran out of energy and fitness of the guys who McDermott could/would trust out there to do something. Everytime we needed to kick it seemed to be [i'give it to Sinfield'[/i but when we've got McGuire, Burrow and McShane who can all kick too then it was frustrating that Melbourne could read what was going to happen and who was going to get it on the 5th so easily last night.

All in all though it was a great effort and we can think 'if only' had Burrow scored, Melbourne were the better team but not by loads and we certainly gave them a battle.

Disagree. McShane is a risk. He is just not consistent and is way behind Burrow in all aspects of the game. His poor tackling technique was a major reason for our loss IMO as it came at a crucial time and his reading of options is 50% at best. Yet you would have started him!

The big difference is when McShane comes on he defends at hooker whereas Burrow doesn't. If you could have McShane defend in the same position that Burrow does then he'll cope much better. The problem is of course that McDermott would have to bite the bullet and sub Burrow off when he brought McShane on.

That Melbourne were noted (by Phil Clarke admittedly) for starting the 2nd half of games well then perhaps McDermott could've planned it better to not have Achurch/McShane/Kirke all out there in the middle at that time.

I know hindsight is a wondeful thing but perhaps instead of bringing on Mcshane for JJB towards the end of the first half he'd have been better off making more like-for-like subsitutions such as.......Clarkson for JJB & McShane for Burrow.

I think Rhinoms needs to take personal feeling out of his evaluation of mcshane. I have no doubt that he's a top bloke, but his quality is not a top 8 side.

You proved my point really that Widnes wanted to keep him, yet Leeds refuse to start him and give him limited game time.

McShane may well not prove the answer,and there is questions about his defence, although that didn't look that bad at Cas. One thing for certain though, his distribution is far superior to Burrow from dummy half. Both players should not be on at same time.

I thught we really missed Hardaker actually. Ablett, as always was a very good replacement but, a couple of times in the second half he got one on one with his opposite number and didn't quite have the pace or footwork or get on the outside, where as Watkins I'm sure would have been able to put Vickery into pace a couple of times.

Does anyone else Vickery may nd up in the back row? To me, he's slow and his positional play at times is suspect, but he works hard and has good leg drve in contact, I think if h puts on some timer he could mae a decent back row.

I'd persevere with McShane. He's started the season well before last night, and he needs to be given more time. Achurch as I've said needs to get fiter and shed some timber.

Just had a look at the you know who forum.My god they dont change do they?some are ok,but that troll who is a moderater he's the worst

I agree with all you have posted regarding the match. Leeds were out coached; McDermott reverting to puzzling use/under use of substitutes.

All those criticising McShane for his undoubtedly poor tackling effort on Bromwich (aided and abetted by the so far strange recruitment of yet another apparent average Aussie at the expense of at least equally as good young English juniors !?!) should be equally criticising Burrow for his appaling knock on from Watkins' sublime first half break. Both were equally critical in an otherwise sterling effort.

The worrying aspects for the future (apart from the weak coaching decisions) were the way the ageing Peacock was still head and shoulders above any other Leeds forward and how rudderless/desperate/risky we are when Sinfield is successfully shut down.

You mean Wigan/Leeds Mandy? To be fair most of them are alright, they do have the likes of Buggo, Dougy, and RBandit who are a holy trinity of divs, but on the whole they're OK despite being slightly obsessed with Leeds.

"All" ?? Hardly fair when at least McShane defends in the middle as a hooker should do. Burrow does get the favourable treatment in that respect.

I like Burrow ...but he is an enigma. Not good enough to be a top class scrum half (Cooper Cronk showed us that), nor indeed a top class hooker (Buderus showed us that). His assets are his acceleration, speed, jinking and low height out of dummy half; he is a good text book tackler too....but that height assett amongst big forwards would be a liability anywhere else in the backs OR indeed forwards.
His non take of Watkins pass last night was a shocker ....on reflection a more critical moment than the pitiable tackling attempt of McShane's at the start of the second half

Agree.

I'm more than happy to have Burrow still starting at hooker, I think the way McShane is used needs to be thought through. Sometimes you can have them on together but I think sometimes you'll just have to have one at a time on. I don't think you necessarily need Burrow on for the full 80 for EVERY single game, a 20-25 mins spell on the bench wouldn't do him or the team any harm (might well prolong his career by a year).

Time Richard Moore and Chris Clarkson were given a fair crack in the second row ahead of Achurch and Kirke. Don't suppose it will happen though.

No it probably won't.....as Kirke & Achurch play front row, as would Moore if selected. As for Clarkson, he should get more minutes (as should any sub) but the other options we have in the back row (Delaney, Ward, JJB) all played very well last night.

Burrow has been a consistent and proven match winner for Leeds over many years and is a one of the most dangerous attackers in the game. He is brave, fast and combines that with a classical tackling technique and is an 80 minute player. So the only reason you would replace him with a lesser player, that at best is a 50 per, is if he were injured or badly out of form.

Burrow has a unique style and since moving to hooker many posters seem to have trouble with this as he plays in a different way to the traditional hooker. Thank goodness the coaches were enlightened enough to have found a way to keep him on the field for the full 80. The coaches do not want him to defend down the middle they want him to stay fresh for attacking and pick a pack full of tacklers who allow this to happen. This has proven to be a successful formula and he has been a key player in our success with distribution good enough to win 2 Championships a WCC and get to a couple of cup finals.

As it turned out when McShane came on he in did not defend well at hooker.

I wondered which of the usual suspects would throw the first brick at Brian Mac. What are the weak coaching decisions that you speak of?