That's cynics...

Several weeks ago we were 6 points ahead of Cas and we tried forcing the play near the Cas line and knocked on. On the free play Luke Dorn broke and Sinfield ended up holding him down and then.......well we all remember what happened next.

Not the prettiest tactics but match winning tactics....to dig at them shows a desperation.

I've previously been a critic of many of our last plays that have truly been nothing kicks, but apart from 2 minor errors by Sinfield when one kick went straight into touch & the second when his kick was charged down, our last tackle plays were very good.
Giving little chance for either Dorn or Carney to make good ground.
Similarly our boring tactic of attacking the short side worked in that it generally worked over the weaker flank of Dixon, Hauraki & Webster & took all the gas out of Webster's tank.
Similarly even when in front we didn't fall into our usual trap of trying to win the game twice.
The fact that the second best offence in the league only scored 10 points shows the success of our tactics.

Phil Daly asked Hall today if he was the only person in the ground that thought he could score from that position. I don't know about anyone else, but personally my eyes lit up the moment I saw him one on one with Dixon.

FFS don't go quoting stats.......

You know for all the talk of the early Tony Smith era and how great we were attack wise.....The 2004 GF will never go down as a great attacking game....it was similar to Saturday of grinding your way to the win, a certain planned kicking game that had a particular target.

Good note about Webster. Dixon will be the one who sticks in people's head for being steamrolled over. But considering the size/expectation of the players involved in both Hall tries then I think Webster was more disappointing than Dixon or Finch when you look at his effort for the 2nd try.

Do you have any comments re the actual game or is it just going to be more of the same ?

Leeds won both the semi-final and final but the 'nothing play' only occurred in the game Leeds appeared almost as frightened to win as they were to lose. I hope the 'nothing play' has no part to play in the future shape of the game - and I suspect it won't.

Leeds' last win at Wembley (before Saturday and after an even longer gap between Challenge Cup successes) relied more on scoring points when in advantageous positions rather than handing the ball over to the opposition.

Yes !

As a player since the age of 9 and a (qualified) coach of the game for 15 years I enjoyed the game on Saturday immensely admiring the skills, structure and aptitude of the whole team in making the coaches expert tactics appear as "nothing plays, a comment which defines your ignorance of the reality of the game and exposes your simple and naïve analytical appraisals as just that IMHO

the tactics worked supurbly. i never expected leeds to play like that and it was obvious neither did cas.
i have criticised the coach in the past but he got it spot on in the biggest game of the season so far

I don't get the boring tactic line. Credit to B Mac he worked over Webster in defence, gave little broken field to Dorn to run in and also nullified carney, and then we had plenty of energy and field position to also nullify Clark. Credit the player for executing the plan and sticking to it. I also think we were sensible, when there was a chance on the last we went to play but if nothing was on kicked to the corner.
Too often I have seen us clueless in attack and not being organised for last tackle play, that was not the situation on sat.

Exactly

One minute we are accused of being without any structure, any red zone play options, and an effective short kicking game, or a plan B. Then when we reveal just that we are then sterile and boring with "nothing plays"

Who has said that here and how does opting for a 'nothing play' on the last tackle address any of those points?

Leeds played well and won the semi-final without resorting to 'nothing plays' while in attacking field position on the last. So what changed at Wembley? Were they concerned that fatigue would become a factor moreso for them than Castleford given the respective ages in the packs?

I loved the tactics/ Half of the game is defending. Leeds ensured they did all of theirs within sniffing distance of the Cas line. Smart, tough and great to watch, unless you're a manic depressive.

By the way, what is a "nothing play"?

Leeds were losing that game against until the 51st minute when Barrie Mac crashed over from a tap penalty. Losing. London then crumbled completely and a great Leeds team put on a terrific show of pace, support and handling. There was no way Cas would have crumbled like London did and in an open game of ping pong rugby you could have simply tossed a coin to decide who won the game on Saturday and that would have played completely into Castlefords hands.

The point being they were not nothing plays but rather a well executed part of a specific structured plan B devised to allow us to apply all the essential against a particular set of opponents ie position, pressure, power, pace and ultimately points.

Just a point but I haven't heard anyone complain about the tactics Leeds employed in the 2004 GF. A team that scored a record number of points during the season and was playing some of the most spectacular open rugby I've ever seen suddenly shut up shop and ground Bradford down with a kick chase tactic and squeaked past them with some not particularly attractive tries.

Only 'nothing' plays in terms of not getting more points on the board.

In terms of helping our defence in terms of getting set and nullifying Castleford's attack (which was much feared pre-match on such a big pitch) it was extremely good.


The big pitch thing was something of a real concern for many on here and we made the Wembley surface look very small and cramped for the much praised Cas attack.

Do you mean apart from the obvious.....different opponents therefore a different set of tactics.



rather than evaluate relative ages perhaps you might instead consider relative experience ie compare the totals of games played in the teams. The difference is staggering and the coach imo realised this would allow them to stick to such a direct and strictly applied game plan.

Sorry TVOC....I normally agree with what you have to impart and I do understand what you are saying BUT I enjoyed the Leeds team performance immensely. The game plan was carried out beautifully and I loved the confidence shown in their defence. Even JJB refrained from giving away a penalty. There was still enough in the fully controlled attack for me to stay happy and the individual brilliance of the likes of Hall, Hardaker and indeed McGuire where a joy to behold. I wish Leeds could play like that every match...I for one would be more than happy. It was a beautiful game plan carried out to near perfect mpressive effect ....by EVERY member of a fantastic team.

It does make the losses against Bradford, London and Wakefield all the more depressing: just a little more care in those selections/performances and ...well it's all speculative now of course, but the criticism has to remain valid in those cases.

However, let's not detract from a fabulous performance. I am more than happy this team has got its just rewards.

IIRC the last game against Cas at HQ was a ping pong sort of so called champagne game of, we score you score.

Did we want to see that repeated a Wembley or would we settle for the alternative ???

I believe I have made my feelings clear.

Like I pointed out a few pages ago, the Sinfield headbutt came about from a broken field play that we worked so well to avoid on Saturday.

As good a gameplan as any of the final victories we've managed in the last 10 years IMO, even if it wasn't the prettiest.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder........I thought the first half was pretty damn near perfection.......which is true beauty

I think most people would like to see the attacking moves from the last SL game and the result from the CC final. You cannot have everything - the point was to win the game and that is what Leeds did.

Personally I want to see elite players showing off their sublime skills to the maximum, I want to come away from a game genuinely awe-struck with some of the skills on show. Seeing a Watkins at full throttle swerving past a defender at full pace is more my thing than kicking the ball 15 metres into touch on the last play. It is all a question of taste and circumstance.

Leeds recovered from a slow start in the '99 final and took the lead on half-time before conceding the first try in the second half. Leeds were not afraid to go out and play in order to win that game despite the twenty one year wait - a fact reflected in the final scoreline.

After Castleford also scored first in the second half how long did Leeds keep them in the game with their own negative play on attack. How many times have teams lost games in the past that they were dominating and leading in simply because they stopped trying to score more points themselves?

Putting in an attacking kick with a co-ordinated chase could have resulted in a Castleford error or another 'McGuire try' - banging it into touch on the last merely turned the possession over without any threat to the Castleford line. Maybe it was Leeds who needed the rest because of their ageing pack and the coach's legendary underuse of the bench. Anyone seeing Peacock around the thirty minute mark must wonder what he has to do to get a rest or was it another case of him refusing to leave the field?

Leeds won a game they dominated for huge stretches (and as stated already for this group on this day the result is all that mattered and I've not said otherwise) but they only found daylight relatively late and as per usual it came courtesy of an exceptional individual effort.

Is Hall coached to beat four men to score or is it just something that he is (almost uniquely) capable of?