[iQuite why you think JJB was "no where near the MOM or "the club going for JJB was a bit of a joke" or your failure to note the Delaney performace leads me to believe that perhaps the crowd were laughing at you as they left the ground[/i



Delaney with 39 tackles and 15 carries and 128 metres and 2 tackle busts and error free was my selection.

JJB with 38 tackles 13 carries and 81 metres, 5 tackle busts, 2 offloads and 1 try was the overall best performance. Had he not lost his rag he would have been my MOM as he also lead our quick line speed and kick chases.


JP with his usual 33 tackles, 25 carries and 156 metres was up there and

Bailey put in a good 35 tackle defensive display

Kirke deserves a mention with 32 tackles and 2 busts

Sinfield 32 tackles and great kicking display

Interesting to note that Sinfield seems to be averaging around 26 tackles a game so far this year. In his last 2 years at 6 he averaged around 19 both years. Could be to do with not having a big tackling stint from a Buderus/Lunt type in doing a Loose Forward/Hooker type role once Burrow was going in at hooker.

Quite why you continue to post your patronising 5h1t on here I don't know, but is why posters laugh at you.

People do have opinions that differ. I could have listed a few players, but I listed two who IMO were the better players. A view as it happens shared by Sky. Not all players can be MOM.

And like I said the number of people laughing at the MOM announcement by club was clear.

Delaney/Peacock were the best players on the park Friday IMO. Hall had a good game too but JJB shouldn't have been anywhere near. I agree I was over critical of him the other day, but he was still too indirect for me. It makes you wonder if he got it just for scoring the winning try.

I'm so glad to have brought you a spot of laughter - I do try. It's the least I can do to repay the many laughs you have provided.

I don't think so. Sinfield still tends to usually defend third in on the right most of the time. After all, we still have Sinfield, Mcguire, Burrow as the "spot" players hidden on the edge. The only change for them being where they play in attack. In defence, it's just that middle spot for the hooker being performed by one of the back row.

It's that right edge pairing of Sinfield and McGuire that gives me kittens, especially when the oppostion put on a big right to left shift.

For two highly experienced players their lack of communication and co-ordination at times is shocking, as witnessed in Thornley's try on Friday.

How many penalties did Jones-Buchanan concede ?

Now how does that figure relate to Opta's version of events ?

Leeds conceded five penalties this week - I know this because I watched the game - I can provide the minute the offences occurred, what appeared to be the infringement and who appeared to be the culprit.

I'm no Opta but perhaps that's not entirely a bad thing.

Do you have any examples (preferably on Sky) as I'd like to test this theory in relation to Sinfield's usual position in the defensive line prior to his full-time switch to stand-off. It's just that his lack of pace increasingly became apparent and exposed after the switch to third man in on the right and I hadn't noticed this being a particular weakness before for Sinfield.

For example I was recently watching the 2008 Grand Final and Sinfield was defensively tasked alongside Ellis and Peacock, those three operating inside the right edge consisting of Ablett, McGuire and Hall. If I were to put a number in from the right wing for Sinfield in that game it would be five. That put Sinfield very much further in-field than we see him today.

If this was untypical in your opinion for Sinfield when defending at loose-forward then I'm happy to look at other examples to see how they compare to the 2008 Grand Final.

Sinfield is still mostly defending in the same position as the last 2 years but from what I've seen this year he is on occasions just getting himself a bit more involved now and again one or two positions in. I doubt he would've done as many tackles on Friday had Buderus or Lunt been playing.

Maybe when we see the first choice line-up on right with Watkins and BJB we'll see if he keeps up his numbers or if it's a case of the defensive structure being slightly different on that right side this year with Sinfield stepping up more. Because for all the talk about Vickery, lets not forget that the right side looked pretty dodgy at times last year too with the first choice in.

I haven't got that much room on my Sky box. Did we really put out a right edge of winger, S/O, centre, 2nd row...leaving our chief playmaker defending in the middle of the pitch?

All by the by really, as Burrow, McGuire and Sinfield attacking from 9, 7 and 6 wouldn't see then align in defence any differently to if they attacked from 7, 6 and 13.

My impression was also that Sinfield in the past defended further in than he has recently. I'm sure he was far more central and involved in closing up the middle of the field - particularly in the days when scooting from dummy half was the popular tactic of many teams to make easy yards.

Without a doubt Sinfield used to defend much more centrally.

Maybe the 38 tackles had and his carries had something to do with it?

FWIW, nobody around me was laughing at the award. A few of us said, "nah it was Delaney" but JJB had an damn fine game.

Does anybody in the North Stand have the capacity to laugh? thought it was full of zero personalities?

We shout "play up boys", we politely clap decent play and occasionally we will have a refined chuckle at the neanderthals stood up or the wannabees in the plastic, sun blinded seats in the Carnegie seats.

It's a more stylish,dapper individual that patronizes the North Stand upper, none of that "Henleys" or "Bench" tat on show. There's no "Two-pintmeisters" amongst us either, we like to retain a modicum of sobriety in order to enjoy and fully understand what is happening on the field of play. We don't look down on others, we just feel glad to be part of the select number in the the North Stand

The interesting part is that the centre in the above alignment was Ablett and Sinfield still took up his defensive duties on his inside and in the GF. Nothing unusual in that as that was where he defended when starting at loose, at least as I recall. He only became an edge defender (whether two or three men in) with the requested and granted full-time switch into the starting stand-off position.



That's correct now under this coach but having lessoned Sinfield's defensive duties he's also lost the the ruck defense of a traditional hooker while adding a third edge-defending half-back - creating a higher workload for the remaining central defenders to fill.

Is it any wonder when they become fatigued, fail to read and react to situations (Delaney for the Farrell try) and/or lose discipline/concede penalties (Jones-Buchanan around the 30 minute mark) and does it make the under-use of replacements sat warming the bench (Ward 57 min and Achurch 66 min) all the more puzzling to understand?

Three edge defenders isn't unusual, or not in cases of teams that play pivots at loose forward.
This usually meant that right side second rows had to do a bit more defending as teams would have their left 2nd row in the edge four (with wing, centre and a half) whilst right 2nd rows in the middle four, with wing ,half, centre and loose on the right edge. Lots of teams no longer play a pivot at loose of course, and so play their loose forward in the middle four with the right second row on the right edge.

But still as yet no other teams defending their hooker on the edge bar McDermott's Leeds - although that only applies when he uses Burrow at hooker - not when he used Buderus, or Lunt or when he uses McShane or Hood.

It will be interesting to see what Nathan Brown does now at St Helens if he uses Lance Hohaia at dummy-half as he appeared to do V Wakefield after the injury to Roby.

Have you got links to any articles detailing this oft-cited request?

As it wasn't related (in my mind at least) to any specific match it could be contained in an article (most likely YEP) almost anywhere from across say a 2010/2011 timeframe - and I'm only guessing at that. I don't have the time needed to track it down - even if I wanted to.

Perhaps there are others who recollect Sinfield expressing the sentiment previously mentioned.

I recall we had a lengthy discussion about you making claims that Sinfield had made similar demands of Noble for the GB team. IMO your "evidence" and recollection was off on that occasion. You have form.

Yes I agree they are similar situations. On that previous occasion [uin your opinion[/u my recollection was off - perhaps it was ..... perhaps it wasn't, who knows?

I can't prove what was said or written but I can recall either hearing or seeing such a comment - or such a comment to that effect. Just because I can't prove it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Thankfully this is only an internet message board rather than a court of law.