I'm not sure we have the halves to develop. Williams possibly then I'm struggling. Smith, our current international SH has nothing to his locker but a very average kicking game. He tries to impress by frantically waving his arms about like a dervish at every PTB, something I never saw the Aussies do once. They didn't have to, they knew what they were doing at all stages & positions, even the rookies.

I think being a non-heartland club may be more beneficial for you! Recruitment may be difficult and as a result you are having to use first teamers and uni teams as parents wont event pretend they know enough to coach and as a result choose not to be involved (or maybe actually learn the game in order to coach). As a result you will get more knowledgable and coaches making objective decisions regarding junior player development. As a parent I had to frequently pull up a 'coach' and explain rules such as why quick taps couldnt be taken and even when a tackle was considered complete.

You do have to wonder what it is about coaches in union which make them much better than their counterparts in league (in general) - these coaches are also parents but are much more profesionsal in their role as a coach. They appear to have a much better knowledge about the rules of the game! Is this because they have to take an on-line test regarding the rules of the game and also attend a rugby child welfare course before even start to coach? All coaches in union must also have a basic level of coaching qualification, the last time I was involved in junior league club, I was told that a qualified coach merely had to be present after I 'raised concerns' - one qualified coach for three age groups (60 children on two full sized pitches).

I dont think that money is the main problem either, its that the junior governing body is constantly turning a blind eye to what goes on. I have heard comments that they need complete amateurs running clubs because they make so much money out of fining clubs. Another financial difference between the codes is in league clubs spend many hundreds of pounds on referees but in union coaches from one team often take on the roll (and provide coaching to both teams throughout play) saving money for coaching courses and developing skills. Parents are happy with this and dont wear rose tinted glasses - they arent allowed to! Any abuse from parents and they are sent from the pitch - if they dont leave the game is called off.

I do however think your last line is the most telling though 'We pay for coaching courses and the like out of our own money because its important to us as a club. Many don't'. For many parents (coaches), it is just a good excuse to get together and have a drink or two (or five).

It's not all rosy in Union. You can coach kids with no qualifications, clubs do like head coaches at mini age group to be at least level 1 qualified but some of the teams we played against didn't have that. There were three of us at our age group, we were all level 1 and two of us could referee.
Frankly, anyone can pass level 1. Level 2 is a little harder but is only required when you move to junior rugby and you're coaching 15 a side on a full pitch.
The worst thing I dealt with was refereeing. I ran our clubs minis festival for 4 years, we had upwards of 600 kids over two weekends. Every year I would ask every club attending to provide one referee for each age group - to ref minis you need to be level 1 or have the basic reffing qualification. Every year we would end up with clubs turning up with nobody who could ref. Some who did were utterly clueless. I would end up spending the whole day refereeing non stop.
Coaches in Union will be exactly the same spectrum as league, you can be as good as you want to be, I did as many additional courses as I could get to (CPD's) and regularly met with our local RFU rep. Others just want to drink and others thought they knew everything anyway.
The big thing Union had done really brilliantly is to provide a safe, secure and welcoming environment for people to bring their kids to. Facilities are generally good, and clubs tow the line because the RFU tolerates very little. Clubs also generally value their reputations.
I also believe the guys at the mid level in the RFU, county/regional, have the right attitude and vision. I've represented our club at our regional committee meetings and it's progressive, pragmatic and there is a lot of common sense used.
Having said all that I packed in coaching last year because my son went into swimming full time. Now swimming is another story - total f*******g nightmare.

Coaching is so good in RU that England have just had to appoint an Aussie deemed not good enough to coach his own country.
Scotland have a Kiwi as do Ireland & Wales. I think Italy's coach is South African. The French is the only side coached by one of their own.
It's the same in cricket, why can't we produce our own world class coaches?

I walk past my local yawnion club with the dogs every weekend & look on in envy at its facilities & the numbers of players participating. But the coaching seems to consist of endless line out & scrummage practice. I think there are a good number of yawnion forwards who have never actually touched a ball in their careers. Which is apparent when forwards get the ball & look completely lost. Compare to NZ players & league players who seem to have grown up with a ball in their hands.

You ever noticed just how many 'lucky' tries the Aussies seem to score? Perhaps at some point we can accept it isnt luck.

Would agree with most of that but I thought Burrow was one of our better players. The problem was a lack of creativity at halfback, centre and fullback where Hardaker once more died with the ball far too often.

Given that the fully fit Cowboys prepared on a sunny Queensland beach while our lads were running around in wellies after the tide came in at Kirkstall we started with a bit of a handicap. Then followed yet more injuries resulting in a much depleted squad so it was no surprise to start as huge underdogs. We gave a good account of ourselves in the first half and shaded it on points IMO despite never being smart enough on attack.

The early errors at the start of the second half from our two wingers gave them the momentum of which they took full advantage. The score line was disappointing and not a true reflection of the overall match IMO

The lack of creativity is a major problem atm. I don't remember us breaking them down last night at all . Scoring tries against the cowboys was always going to be difficult but we struggled to score in the 2 previous games too. Having Mcguire out hasn't helped but he is going to be missing for a few weeks yet.

point is that Coote had run just in case it rickashayed back in his direction whilst none of the defenders on the open side bothered to push across, little 1 per cost you against top teams, I think the end of the game showed that NQC were just fitter than Leeds

I think people see tries from kicks as lucky, but when you look at a well executed kick with a committed chase you can see its more than that. On the training paddock Handley doesn't drop that. Put 5 Aussies charging toward him and is a different picture

Handley totally misjudged it and he does have a history of similar errors so his handling is a worry. To be fair he later took some bombs well but by then the damage was done.

Is that all they are?
Just fitter than Leeds?

Sadly too many people in the amateur game think it should be just like the pro game. With the same structure, rules and attitudes. When they should be very different.
As a small example I don't give a toss about Garbutt's punch. It's 2 props having a go, great stuff. But there's no place for that, none whatsoever, in the amateur game.

In the same way as we should alter the rules to get what we want from it and we should definitely alter the structure of the amateur game. There's no reason it should mirror the pro game with a straight league and cup structure.

Then there's the attitude of far too many people involved in amateur RL. It's terrible. It's time we started regularly chucking people and clubs if need be out of the game. I know Queens are the obvious example but it's ridiculous that they're still going. They should've been disbanded long ago.
It's time league officials started taking responsibility for the state of their leagues and started handing out these bans, but sadly they won't because they're all friends with each other. So the entire system needs scrapping and starting again.

There is obviously the issue of players skills but the other side of it is that the amateur game also holds the game back in terms of increasing the number of fans of our sport. The amateur game is a huge potential entry point for new fans and it currently turns many of them away.

Nah. I think it's rare these days to find one pro team that's fitter than another which is why that "reason" for a team losing always annoys me. It's what the winning team has done with and without the ball that tires the other team not a lack of fitness.

I would say that in general I think the NRL players are more athletic. I know that's a vague term but they appear more able to be big, fast and relatively agile whereas SL players are often one or the other. There are obviously exceptions.

i think there's a mental difference. I think they're, in general, stronger mentally and don't let their heads go down as easily. I also think they're that little bit more focussed on their role. Probably only a bit but that's all it takes for players to push that little bit harder and be in support or get back to the right position in defence. Which probably comes from slightly better coaching and a more consistently intense league.

As has been mentioned lots of times, I also think we fight an uphill battle trying to teach players skills that they should've learnt at an earlier age, so their development is put back. I won't go any further into that as its already been said but I think it's obvious they're more confident passing and handling the ball.

The squad sizes/quality shouldn't go unmentioned either though. If we have our full teams out I think we do ok against them but we can't afford losing key players such as Roby, McIlorum or McGuire, especially on top of other players missing.

No, the point is that Coote run through because a kicker of Thurstons quality gets that kick through, a kicker of Burrow's quality, or any of the names you mentioned before dont do as often.

And i dont think it is fitness, it was that NQC asked questions nearly every tackle constantly rolling forward and moving them about and keeping leeds on the back foot. NQC's structure and execution meant they didnt have to work as hard

I would go as far as saying I dont think NRL players are fitter than SL players in any meaningful way. I dont think they are particularly faster or more athletic. I just think they are better. What an SL player can do 8 times out of 10, an NRL player can do 99 times out of 100 and these are simple things.
You are right those little 1%s are the difference. But those 1%s are the pass being right on the button so the receiver isnt stretching or stuttering, the right pass being chosen, the bomb going that little bit higher, having that bit more spin on it, the grubber being that bit more accurate.

Its amazing how often NRL sides or Australia score "lucky" tries against us. Or "soft" tries. It just doesn't happen so much in reverse, because the Aussies generally make far fewer mistakes and in both attack and defence are quicker to react as a group.

The structured nature of their plays means they are always asking questions in attack, and in defence are used to facing the same so are better at reading plays.

All of it comes down to needing to be at a higher level week in week out and lets be honest a bigger pool of better players.

The Aussies are far more composed. If you watched Thurston he hardly broke sweat in the first half.

Absolutely not they do the basics very well punish every error and when they upped the gears their/JT's true class put the game away.
The only difference to us v NQC and the other 2 games was at least we made a game of it for the 1st 40 but as we well know a RL match is an 80 minute encounter.

With regards to my own post re-lucky tries i do think that the Coote and the last one (O'neil)? had plenty of luck about them but that didn't detract from them being a class above us.

The more I practice the luckier I get.

just read from sunday and this prob fairest summing up , 1st half was above expectations for me.

hardaker or an uninjured ward would be my captain and jjb club captain.

sutty and lilley deserved a crack but we need to bring in proven quality before we are too far behind.

sinfield and peacock were ice and fire leadership wise hard to replace by anyone.

galloway had a better game , liked ferres , and step too far for jimmy.

hardaker doesn't seem to be beating 1st man running out anymore

Most worrying sign for me is that when we didnt get the bounce of the ball for 10 mins it completely destroyed our patience, we had little resilience and didnt absorb the pressure well enough, I actually think the fitness of some of the player is questionable
Mcguire still captain for me, JJb to share with Burrow until Mags is back
Who are you gonna bring in for Lilly or Sutcliffe? and its not there fault we have shipped so many points in the last 2 games
Hardaker seems vey out of sync in attack imo, he isnt pushing through holes in support when they are available and is being given the ball to early to properly link in with the line (though that might not be his fault) and isnt offered the overlap enough, our attacking set plays in general are poor, in fact, when was the last time we scored off an attacking passing set play? these are problems that persisted last year as well though

yes, and that didn't end too badly if i recall

Tbf after the quick double at the start of the 2nd half it was 14-4 for nearly 15 mins. Once that try from Sutcliffe shinning a grubber into their players hands with less than 20 left then I can understand heads dropping. 16 points in under 20 mins vs NQC wasn't going to happen, but they did keep fighting when they were only 10 behind with 25/30 mins left.

It was Leeds' 7th WCC Final, Leeds recorded their lowest ever score (equal lowest try count, lowest goal count) while conceding their highest ever total (most tries against), goes without saying their biggest ever defeat in this fixture and by some considerable distance. Previous reversals were by 4, 8 and 8 - on Sunday by 34.

Over the course of eight days 16 - 94 (-7icon_cool.gif, you have to go back to the dark days of 1996 to find a bigger brace (-38 & -54 - home to Bradford then away at Wigan)