Don't say that. Hunslet are just starting to gel and look a strong promising team. Don't need him here

Stinker for Vickery. He was targeted and he couldn't cope with it.

Overall Leeds stunk. Vickerys errors didn't cost us the game. Our errors as a team and inability to cope with Brough did.

I also suspect that Vickery is not running at 100% on his ankle injury, but is back in the side as quickly as possible as there is no one else of better quality that is realistically available to fill that position.

As Bloodbath rightly says, it was not Vickery that lost us the game Vs Huddersfield and we could do a lot worse than start the post mortem at the door of 'Super Coach' BMD .... He's failed yet again, like most Leeds coaches since 2005, to effectively deal with the threat that Danny Brough poses.

IF this is correct it really [uis[/u a poor showing on Leeds's planned recent recruitment



Again, I respect Vickery for coming over under his own initiative, but the way he has been fast-tracked into the first team is a significant concern and reflection on the apparent inadequancies of the club's acadamey.

I hope he does prove his doubters (inc. me) wrong, but how many Kirke-like-chances should one lad be given before trying an alternative?

Given the run of games we've had - WCC, Sts, Hudds then Wigan - whoever got given the 2 shirt at the start was always likely to hold it throughout unless they blew it horribly in the first game or got injured. Vickery was OK against the Storm and obviously didn't lose us the game vs Sts (despite a poor performance). I find some of McDermott's decisions baffling, but once he'd made his choice I can't fault him for sticking with Vickery to date.

I will find it hard to defend McDermott if Vickery has another stinker against Wigan but then continues to get picked in what are on the surface 'easier' games.

If any part of the problem is Vickery not being 100% fit, then all blame should be directed at the coaching staff for picking him, not at a tyro player who's confidence could be blown apart by asking them to play whilst unfit. You can hardly blame Vickery for putting his hand up to play any game possible - he's obviously desperate to make it in SL.

I'd rather if we have to play someone who is not ready for SL, and therefore kills their confidence, that it be an import, rather than a promising youngster

This isn't a nursery fellas it's a full-time professional sport.

I can't believe that there aren't Academy prospects that would walk over hot coals for the opportunity given to Vickery - a player who in my continued opinion wouldn't have seen sight of 1st grade had he progressed through the Leeds system.

It is full-time professional sport, and its run by full-time professionals who know more about the game at the elite level, than all the internet coaches on here, and across the world put together. Some things we will never understand. One thing I do understand is that McDermott has won 2 grand finals as a coach, and a couple as a player. Hetherington has assembled 6 grand final winning squads with Leeds. In terms of judging who is better than who, or who is ready and who isn't.

Vickery hasn't started well at Leeds, he may prove to be a dud. If that happens I would expect us to cut our losses and move him on.

Until then, I would be happy to see him for what he is, 2nd reserve for the backs.

It's not the 'internet coaches' on here that are signing players and shipping them out on loan or out of the club altogether before their contracts are up.

There was a starting prop for Leeds on Friday that (according to Opta) failed to make a carry in the opening ten minutes of the match. How is that even possible at a full-time professional club with full-time professional players and a full-time professional coaching staff?



Just because you understand something doesn't neccesarily make it correct. Sounds like something he might have done but I'm not sure that he did.

I remember when the all conquering Wigan side used to win all before them. I think it was when they appointed Monie as coach, or maybe the one after, and the general statement from the Coach and the media at the time was "that this Wigan side could coach it's self, and not sure what difference the coach appointment would make". It was a sweeping statement, but not far off correct.

Winning those 2 grand finals for McDermott will go down in history, and good luck to him. But doing it off the back of others teams I'm sorry but it doesn't have the same worthiness. He still as a lot of questions to answer IMO to be regarded as high as his predecessors.

The Monie comment I recall was that his Grandmother could coach this team.

Perhaps she could but then it's doubtful she'd have lined up with a centre at full-back, a second-row at centre, a loose-forward at stand-off, a stand-off at scrum-half, a second row at prop, a scrum-half at hooker. To do that takes some proper coaching skilllzzzzs.

You can't have it both ways. You've been slating this squad of players and calling them finished for years, even before McDermott's arival. Now they're so good that they can win a Grand Final on their own.

No I haven't. You have been saying I have for years. Always talking nonsense of course and your own agenda's.

I just let you carry on with the rubbish.

Therefore my point stands.

I assume it was Ian Kirke. If so, why would anybody show any surprise at such a statistic?

However, let me defend him here. We spilled so much possession that he may have an excuse for a low hit up rate. I'll defend him further by questioning the validity of that stat because I saw him make one carry, albeit he did knock the ball on so perhaps that doesn't constitute a "carry".

No, I can't go on defending him. Even with all that it wouldn't surprise me to see him hide from the ball.

And you cannot criticise McDermott solely. Kirke must have had photos of Mclennan and Smith before him. I remain baffled at his continual selection given his lack of bottle but I tired of beating that drum some time ago and am now resigned to watching his "contribution each" week as his fellow professionals carry him to glory.

I have no desire to knit fog today.

People have read your opinions on this squad of players. They can make their own minds up.

They could yes. Not sure some are capable though with the "their own" bit

I can only remember Brough making one actual break and eluding players and thats when Vickery finaly dropped back to protect the sideline and Brough ran it. Apart from that our line speed was good and the tries they scored through the hands came from good vision and an offload here and there.

As for me saying I thought we matched them elsewhere apart from the score, the stats this morning back me up

Metres:
Lee - 1058
Hudd - 932

Carries:
Lee - 184
Hudd - 186

MPC:
Lee - 5.75
Hudd - 5.01

Offloads:
Lee - 7
Hudd - 10

Tackles:
Lee - 308
Hudd - 271

Missed:
Lee - 27
Hudd - 20

Tackle %:
Lee - 92
Hudd - 93

Penalties:
Leeds - 7
Hudd - 8

Breaks:
Lee - 5
Hudd - 6

Errors:
Lee - 21
Hudd - 12

Like I said before the stats even came out, I didnt see a whole lot of difference across the pitch between the teams apart from errors and their kicking game that set up 4 out of the 6 they scored.

And yes, it was at HT I posted about Brown. How sky gave him the MOM is beyond me after the 2nd half performance.

Oh the Irony.

Those do not back you up Harrigan. Not sure how you have come to that conclusion. There is massive differences in each of those.

FWIW I agree completely. I though our defence was excellent first half. We really fired into them, especially Crabtree.

I hoped that our completion rate would impove 2nd half but it didn't and the tries were bound to come late on given the turnovers.

The kicking game was excellent but we didn't have our full back. Kallum is a talent no doubt but his positioning was poor, as one might expect from someone so inexperienced at the position.

2 of the stats you quoted we were better



1 was the missed tackles and I have since added tackle efficiency which there is a difference of 1%. The other is the error count, which I said originally was the reason we lost. My point originally was that with ball in hand, and defensively, ie line speed/tackling, there wasnt much difference at all and there wasnt. They scored 3 tries off of errors from kicks and 1 from a great kick to the corner where Vickery decided to run in 20 metres. The other 2 tries were well worked.

The difference is I share a negative opinion of Kirke that is reinforced by his performances.

You give a negative opinion of, say, Burrow, who proves you wrong by winning a Harry Sunderland award or JJB who proves you wrong by winning player of the year, for example.

In other words, I know what I am talking about and you don't. It's fairly self evident.

Your correct, my mistake.

This is that stat that beat us.

As the age-old saying goes "you can't score without the ball".