Admittedly it takes a special player to do that, but the repeated probing down the Cas right hand side in the first half probably led to a somewhat weary defence by the time Hall crashed through it.

^^^^^^^^^^^

What did I say

To try and compare 1999 and 2014 is desperate and foolish.

What Castleford have shown this year is more than the London team of 1999 did which achieved more losses than wins. Had Sneyd or Finn floated a pass out wide that Briscoe could intercept for a 90m try just like Rivett did then we could hold some weight to your argument.

I don't recall many of the Leeds tries in the 2nd half in 1999 being the result of last tackle options......but grasp if you must. I doubt the Leeds team of 1999 would've scored 50 if they'd have faced the Cas side of 2014.

Can't believe the tactics are being criticized after we WON. Fair enough had we lost but in reality it's not about how you win, that doesn't go down in the history books the score does

No need to apologise as I also enjoyed the result and as intimated already no-one will care how it was achieved only that it was achieved and I'm no different to everyone else in that regard.

The spectacle of League will not be improved by employing negative tactics such as deliberately kicking the ball off the field when in attacking positions and is a tactic best left to others who perhaps 'play their rugby elsewhere' as Bill McLaren used to inform BBC viewers and I trust and hope it's a one-off used only in the exceptional circumstances that the Leeds legendary core group found themselves in on Saturday.

I don't know why the tactics are being criticised or are somehow thought to be dull or boring.

They're no more boring than the tactics any other team has used this year.

Some people, probably because Dave Woods kept saying during commentary that it "wasn't a classic", also seem to think it was a boring game.
Far from it. It was quick and both sides passed the ball out wide.

I sometimes wonder what some people are actually watching because it can't have been the game of rugby that actually took place.

I wouldn't say the tactics were boring (is a kick to touch more or less boring than a kick into the in-goal) but they were negative, and they were negative for a reason. As people have already said, it stopped Cas doing what they did best.

I've no complaints about the tactic and it was implemented perfectly. The group of players clearly desperately wanted to win and didn't press home their advantage in the second half in case it somehow risked letting Cas back in the game.

Personally, I thought kicking to touch when in the Cas 30 was taking it too far. Think we put in 4 attacking kicks in those circumstances: the one bomb to Dorn which was a McGuire try, one to Dixon which he messed up but Cas came away with the ball (5 yards from their line, just as they would have if we'd put it to touch), and two improvised McGuire grubbers each of which led to repeat sets from which we scored. But there were also half-a-dozen times in the Cas 30 where we rifled the ball dead or into touch. Not from within our own half, but from attacking positions.

We could have pressed home our advantage with more attacking kicks when deep in Cas territory and where the danger of returns was low. Judging from how things went when we actually did put in those kicks we'd have scored a lot more points than 23, but I think in the second half the understandable ultra-conservative mentality born of many CC defeats led our players to concentrate on making absolutely sure Cas didn't score and were always starting their sets 90 yards out, rather than being massively interested scoring ourselves.

Like I said - end justifies means and no complaints, but anticipate we'll play things a bit differently over next few weeks.

There is skill on both sides of the game, and the speed and aggression of the defensive line was a joy to behold.

Leeds tactic of the day was to back their defense to hold case away from their line. The two tries came from a double repeat set which was initiated from a penalty, the one from a blatent forward pass on half way.
Whilst the score kept me nervous, Cas rarely threatened our line

Constantly battling away from their line meant that mistakes handed us the positions to score from.

Kicking the ball into touch gave the forwards the 20 seconds to catch their breath they needed to really get into the cas players.

There are many ways to skin a cas, and we did it perfectly

What is being commented on is the tactic of deliberately kicking the ball into touch when in attacking positions, which I would personally define as anything within say 35 to 40 metres of the opponent's try-line. Leeds either did/or attempted to do this on two or perhaps three occasions in the third quarter on Saturday. It appeared an attempt to protect the first half lead rather than to protect and to build upon it. If so it failed as during this period Castleford reduced the Leeds lead to a single converted try. Indeed the Castleford score in this quarter incidentally followed a failed Sinfield attempt to bounce the ball into touch while in an attacking position on the last. Leeds' needless negative approach got what it deserved and was all the more disappointing as the previous Leeds kick was much more effective as it pinned an isolated Dorn four metres from his own line.



The only person I recall employing that particular term was someone speaking in favour of the negative tactic employed by Leeds on the last on occasions and a couple of others wishing to represent (mis-represent?) what others are saying.



I'm not saying this about you but more generally I only really wonder these days why people aren't willing to engage in discussions about the actual incidents within a game in a respectful manner without resorting to either playground insults or the often inappropriate use of smileys (or both) no doubt intended to demean the honestly held views of another poster - where I hope it's still recognised they only actually demean themselves when doing so.

Had Leeds managed to win a couple of their previous CC finals, I'm sure they would have been more willing to chance their arm against Cas. Not winning the cup was a huge monkey on the collective backs of more than half the team, and I think in the circumstances a 'safety first' gameplan made sense.

As others have said the 2004 GF was a relatively dour affair as well, especially for a team that had generally been renowned for scoring lots of tries. The 2009 GF was a really dull affair as well.

Sometimes finals work out that way. In fact absolute 'classic' matches in finals aren't that common from memory (....prepares for list of great games). For every Hull-Wigan 1985 there's a Hull-Wigan 2013.

Thought it was a great result and tactically very astute with a well executed 'game plan' there for all to see. Some people described our approach as 'ruthless' and I think, for all the reasons we know well, that it was indeed a ruthless/clinical/professional sustained performance.

I also share TVOCs view that it was not particularly a brand of football I would want to see week in week out, to be honest in the cold light of day with the emotion stripped out it was rather dull stuff.

Of course this raises issues about why any of us go to see any competitive sport (to win trophies or to be entertained) of course the best teams can and do do both. In the long run I really want to go to see professional RL and Leeds in particular to be entertained but occasionally I am happy to forgoe high entertainment for a ruthless but somewhat dull trophy winning performance. Obviously losing game after game whilst trying to play sublime football all the time becomes frustrating and not particularly entertaining!

SO I would argue for a balance of efficiency and entertainment and if occasionally we have to deliver a less than thrilling performance to 'get the job done' I can live with that!! What I can't live with is low levels of entertainment throughout the season with a focus solely on winning the end of season knockout tournament by playing the way we did at Wembley.

At a time of great joy for most Leeds fans you still have to be the wet blanket. Your comments above regarding what in your eyes are "nothing play" only indicates a lack of real understanding of rugby. Field position is a vital part of the game as is control. What to your eyes were "nothing play" in fact were a key part of the game plan and a major reason that Leeds dominated and won the game.

I guess you are not very old or then maybe very very old.

As a Wigan fan I'll give you a few tries better than Halls than and all scored at Wembley, Billy Boston v Hull, Brett Kenny v Hull, Henderson Gill v Hull, Ellery Hanley v Halifax, Ellery Hanley v Saints, Mark Preston v Warrington, Martin Offiah v Castleford, Martin Offiah v Leeds and Joel Tomkins v Leeds.

Now that's just Wigan I'm sure there are fans of other clubs who tell you the same. For instance Ton Van Vollenhoven v Wigan.

Sinfield rightly deserves stick for running the penalty against Bradford. It was an easy two points when we were behind by two, going for a try was an utterly ridiculous decision.

But kicking the ball into touch and getting Cas locked down in their own half time after time was a fine and sensible play. Sure, we might have got lucky on another play and scored another try had we bombed them, but we could have also been unlucky and allowed Cas a break which murdered us. In the first half we were almost totally dominant and had it fairly easy, but that dominance wasn't reflected on the scoreboard and I have no problem with us being ultra conservative as the game went on.

If you put up big kicks to try and get another try, that means the whole team have to follow that kick and get set quickly so the defence is solid. Booting the ball into touch meant that the players could stroll to the scrum and instantly know exactly what they faced defensively. I don't think that Cas were in any way happy to see us kicking to touch each time, I think they knew we'd got them in a headlock and we weren't going to let them out.

Well, first of all he did say winger so that rules out Kenny, Hanley and Tomkins.

I actually thought Offiah's 2nd against us in the 94' final was just as good as the iconic first, when Cassidy broke and put him away, the significance of that was huge too as we had all the momentum after being 12 points down at HT.

The great John Atkinson also scored a great great try at Wembley too but my favourite was the semi final try in 1968 , but I suppose you can only beat the calibre of player trying to mark you

I believe Green Vigo said the same.

Well no excuse ,but Atkinson had just come off Nightshift with the police ,but then again Vigo could have stated 'oh but I had had a night on the beer so what'never the less why didn't you give Atkey a mention ?

John Atkinson legend of the game.
Green Vigo one memorable game against Leeds disappeared without a trace. See leroy rivet, Kevin penny. Etr

So e great try's there. The Hanley one against Halifax is one of my favs. But halls two try's where very special. Not all try's have to be length of field to be spectacular or great try's. And a few of the above where from very iffy defences in high scoring games.

Halls two try's will go down as great wembley try's.

Its a purely subjective matter but for me both of Halls tries were special and rank up there with any you have quoted IMHO

I'd have to watch it again, but I'm pretty sure Hanley's try against Fax shouldn't have been given because Hanley was stood infront of the PTB.

Hanley was always ahead of the play the ball.,

Lined up with opposition defensive line, bullying ref, I presume.

No Lydon caught the ball directly from a kick, beat about four men and turned it inside to Hanley who went under the posts. Then Graham Edie dropped on Hanley with his his knees.

I used to watch him do this. When tackled he would stand, play the bal,l and then walk off down the pitch and be in front of the next play the ball.