Let's get some clarity here shall we:
The challenge cup final was a one sided walk over - would you say a 50-0 win at Wakey would have taken a lot out of a side - I wouldn't. They shouldn't go from reasonably good form to worn out and error strewn because of that game and what it took out of them surely?

I never said they wouldn't beat the bigger sides I said they would find it hard and so it has proved - against the top 8 sides they have lost to Wigan x2, Saints, Warrington, Catalans, Castleford x 2.

On Magic I said it would be interesting to see how the team reacted compared to last year - which I genuinely believe started the slump. I never said things would repeat themselves.

Saints have revived not because they had a week off - because their playmaker has suddenly hit some form - that has given the team some confidence/belief. You saw that last night Walsh looks a different animal that what we saw earlier in the season.

I have said before weeks off are not a guarantee of good form. How many knock out games did Leeds win against sides that had had the previous week off? The squad should be strong enough to play one game a week through the season the fact the coach seems reluctant to rest certain players is another matter.

The issues at Leeds are far more than the coach:
The strength of the squad is CEO issue - he makes the purchases, the forwards have lacked depth of quality and youth
The development of young players is a scouting and coaching issue - only one young player has made a mark this year and that is Handley who I doubt has a long term future at Leeds. With an ageing squad you have to question why we were playing Watkins injured and Ward on one leg in a game we needed to win against a team we should be better than.
Player performance - that's a coaching/conditioning issue. This team shouldn't look this lethargic at the business end of the season.

I picked Leeds to finish 5th - no doubt you picked them to finish 1st unless something changes - you never know the Giants are an enigma - I will be closer to being correct than you. Time will tell, I hope you are right and I am wrong.

I tipped 3rd actually by seasons end.

The cup final wasn't the toughest contest ever, but you seem to fail to understand that they would've still been aiming to peak for it regardless of the opposition. I doubt they were sat their on Monday morning saying "don't bother lads, we'll stroll this".

As for those losses you've listed I've always found it better to list both wins and losses (no surprise you just go for losses). We had quite a healthy W8 L5 record before Wembley. Against all Top 8 (Hudds seems absent in your list of top teams) we've managed a W15 L8 D1 total in all competitions this year. Before Wembley and these 3 losses that was almost a 75% win percentage against other top teams so I'm not sure you've "proven" anything.

next two games will prove who is correct. for me two years slump, a massive slump, after Wembley is unacceptable and raises issues which I think sal is partially correct on.
playing injured players because there are no alternatives, for a top side, is pathetic. that's the CEO as sal says. he is correct, in my opinion, about the squad strength, especially in the second row. keinhorst and achurch should only be squad players, not playing a lot of games.
again players being exhausted at this crucial time is, again, unacceptable. was nothing learnt by the conditioner, coach and CEO from last year?
had we some good youngsters or a larger squad we could have played a second string v saints and then come back fresh for catalan.

Yeah, I think any reasonable poster would conclude that Sal's likely to be spot on with some of the points he's raised on here. Bit strong to suggest that playing injured players is pathetic though: every side does it, the real question is the severity of the injury. Which I assume the club doctors have a better handle on than most on here.
I think exhaustion is almost as much a mental thing as a physical one at this stage. Get on a roll and your ok but if that bubble bursts then its a lot harder to put things right than at an earlier stage of the season. That's one of the coach's jobs and I was a bit worried how despondent McDermott seemed when interviewed after the match. I rather got the impression he felt he'd done all he could. Clearly, it wasn't enough. However, I'll be interested to see whether Shaun Wane is able to reinstate that feeling of invincibility into Wigan after last night. Always worth bearing in mind that there are some situations beyond the control of any coach, however good. Look no further than Tony Smith this year.
As for the selection v saints, we could have played more youngsters, some of whom are good. They might have made a fist of it in the way Hull's did against wigan last week. I'd have said ours were better. But in the euphoria of winning the cup, and following some of the rugby preceding it, not least against Saints, I think going with strongest available was understandable. Maybe an error in hindsight but an understandable one. we had looked invincible. I guess at the end of the day the game's coached and played by human beings, every one capable of f****g up.

Are actually saying they peaked for the CC final at the expense of the games that followed? They were prepared to sacrifice the GF for the CC?. I am struggling to understand how they can suddenly look so lethargic - even the back three have had little impact in these three games especially in driving the team forward. Briscoe has turned in to Leroy!!

Maybe this is a mental attitude issue i.e. they knew they would lose to Saints - collateral damage of the final and thought they could waltz in and waltz out of Perignan but Cas was a must win game and they still look listless.

I take your point about Aiton but having three props defending in the middle is madness - Stevie Ward should have been the one in the middle. He is the best defender, the youngest with the most stamina.

I just don't get this cup final draining us as others are claiming. the saints game yes but the other two? seriously?

I think it's a lot more to do with injuries we've had than Wembley hangover.

Not having your 2 first choice hookers is going to affect any team. We haven't been able to get the toll on in attack and make the big metres, which means we're working harder in defence. I'm sure that if we had Aiton and Burrow fit we'd have the LLS wrapped up

I think it's a bit of both. We obviously peaked mentally and physically for the final. Having built up a lead we probably sacrificed some intensity in the games after.

We have also had injuries to key people. Whilst Hall and briscoe are excellent you could take them out and it would not affect how we pay so much, but we are currently without 3 main pivots, and our main organiser is having to go into dummy half. Not to mention the affect on defense that losing aiton has had

I think we need two trusted hookers in the squad. Proper hookers who defend the middle and distribute effectively. For a club of our status to potentially derail our best season in ages because of 1 player getting injured is not good.

I agree. Having one hooker and a small half back who can spell him at dummy half is just not a model any coach should think is adequate.

So what is your theory then?

no idea, but I don't believe it's mental tiredness because of winning a final, in which we never got out of second gear. I fully understand the saints game, possibly catalan but not that abject rubbish v cas. my opinion is the forwards are mostly old and/or big and not mobile. they've simply run out of legs. peacock was appalling last two games. he's nothing left in the tank.also we are paying for being mostly injury free. saints have a lot of fresh players due to a mid season injury crisis.
i'm hoping a few days off will recharge a few batteries and they have three big games left in them.
I think if we win on Friday, and I believe we can, then with the scent of old Trafford in their nostrils they are capable of winning the GF. however for that to happen they must have a home game in the semi's

The forwards are mostly old line is garbage. Yes we all know how old Peacock is, Leuluai too but it's not like he plays big minutes and he was somebody who didn't start his season until around the mid-point. The rest are of various ages, but not "too old"

look at the minutes they have played. most have been injury free. and people like Delaney have played far too many minutes because we haven't had sufficient cover in the second row. he is 29 and looks 39 at the minute

No, as usual I'm saying what I said. That they will have tried to peak for the Cup Final....that was in response to your "but the final was easy" point. Trying to downplay reaching Wembley and the effect it will have had because of the oppositions performance. Might not have been the toughest physical encounter but Hardaker, Watkins and Burrow wouldn't have gotten injured if they'd have been sat at home watching two other teams play in the final instead. Ward, Delaney and Ablett still put in huge shifts that day that their bodies would've felt for days afterwards.

He missed the previous two before Wembley. Delaney always looks knackered out on the field, just like Peacock does. Hell its the same way they look after the 10 mins of the opening game of the season.

I do not pretend to have the answer either and Mac looked equally baffled as the poor performance too. I do have a few theories though. Form is an elusive state which can come and go without warning. In professional sport the mental state is as important if not more so than the physical one and can quicken or slow down the reaction time to make the difference to good and bad form IMO. Because we "never got out of second gear" at Wembley should therefore not have effected our post final physical performances.

Indeed in all three defeats we have made considerably more tackles than our seasons match average (+80 av per defeat approx) We also made more metres and carries than our season average but crucially missed more tackles (+18 per defeat) and approx double the errors per match too. So if were just physical exhaustion I would have thought our tackle count would be lower and not higher. Also a word in JP's defense - while not at his best he still made 42 tackles, 163 metres in 20 carries so it is a bit unkind to suggest he was "appalling" or that he has "nothing left in the tank"

Therefore we should not underestimate the effects of mental tiredness. There is the tough mental build up to a Wembley final and the post match emotion draining effect particularly for the winners who will quite naturally switch off mentally having achieved their goal. To then try and regain the mental build up for the next tough league match against top rivals is a very difficult task as many many previous Cup winners have discovered. If you lose this next match then momentum is lost, confidence takes a bash as does form.

Add to this some serious injuries losing Aiton, Sutcliffe, JJB for the season thereby restriction our options when we incurred further injury with Burrow missing for all of the 3 losses since Wembley and Watkins, Hardaker and Keinhorst missing for two of theses defeats you have big problems to fix things. These injuries led to a shortage of front line players to cover hooker and half back for three tough and tricky fixtures which saw the opposition in all three matches produce seasons best performances. All in all a recipe for falling off the horse.

Without doubt the loss of first Aiton and then Burrow caused the biggest problems. With no Sutcliffe to call on, and our academy hooker seemingly having regressed sufficiently so as not to be considered, meant disruption which ever way you look at it.

Therefore for the drop in performance to have effected almost the whole side at the same time I would say mental tiredness has to be a major factor. Much will depend on getting our injured back on the field particularly Sinfield and Burrow if we are to have a strong finish. But this set of players do have experience and usually can be relied upon to show mental toughness when it counts so I still live in hope.

Australian legend Ray Price was the same. He always looked knackered yet he was like the Duracell bunny. He could play all day.

I agree with Tad in that I think only the Saints game can really be down to a Wembley hangover.

But I also agree with Printer in that I don't think it's age or tiredness that's the issue.

I think it's that the combination of injuries we've got is very unfortunate for the way in which we were playing and for what made us so good.
A lot has been made of our back line (and rightly so) but our game this season has, in my opinion, really emanated from hooker. Aiton's work from dummy half has been absolutely brilliant this season and our entire team has played off what he was doing.

Whether it's a few steps then pass, a simple pass from DH, or a wide run across the pitch, Aiton got us moving forward and our entire attack just fitted in with what he was doing. Cuthbertson and Peacock were running off him close to the play the ball. Sinfield and McGuire were waiting in the 2nd phase to link the attack. And the backrows and centres then ran off the halves or directly off some of Aiton's runs.
Now that we've lost that that means our attack just isn't anywhere near as fluent. And against the better teams all it takes is that half-second mis-timing to blunt your attack.

We've also missed Aiton's defence. Not really for any big hits or anything but with often playing Leuluai, Peacock, Cuthbertson and Garbutt they're all very very big blokes. Aiton was the guy in defence, because he was in the middle, who could help these blokes out in defence and avoid them getting stepped around. I'd go so far as to say those 4 are probably the combined biggest set of props in the league. And without a mobile, workhorse defender in the middle they're getting exposed.

It's a difficult situation because if we play Sinfield at hooker with an extra forward on the pitch we tighten up the defence but really blunt the attack.
If we play Lilley or Burrow at hooker we improve the attack but leave us exposed in defence.

I'd be tempted to go with Lilley starting at 9 with Burrow at 14, but I don't think we can go with such a big pack.
I understand why this happened v Cas with JJB, Achurch, Sutcliffe & Keinhorst injured we didn't have much choice. But I think we've got to leave one or 2 of the 5 props out and have some more mobile second rowers in there, especially as neither Delaney nor even Ablett are that mobile laterally.

If fit I'd go with this team v Hudds:

6. Sinfield
7. McGuire

8. Cuthbertson
9. Lilley
10. Peacock
11. Ablett
12. Delaney
13. Ward

14. Burrow
15. Garbutt/Leuluai
16. Singleton
17. Keinhorst/Walters

Hardaker
Briscoe Watkins Moon Hall
Sinfield McGuire
Garbutt Lilley Peacock
Ablett Ward
Cuthbertson

Burrow Delaney Singleton Leuluai

Hardaker
Briscoe
Watkins
Keinhorst
Hall
Sinfield
McGuire
Garbutt
Moon
Peacock
Ward
Delaney
Cuthbertson

Leuluai
Singleton
Ablett
Burrow/Lilley

If Keinhorst isn't fit then Briscoe to LC and Handley as RW

Managing a squad under the cap without a reserve team is hard, but I tend to agree that whilst we looked fairly well covered in most positions (albeit with gambling on Handley and Golding as cover 1-5, which has worked), not having a capable deputy at hooker in the event of injury to either Burrow or Aiton was a risky decision. To be fair I'd assume the plan was Robbie Ward, but it wouldn't have been hard to give him a proper shot early in the season, which at least would have given him a chance to show if he was up to it and look to someone else if he wasn't. We're now way too too late in the season to do much about his lack of ability.

I'd assume next year we'll again have some academy hooker around, but we also won't have the option of Sinfield, so it would make sense for at least one other member of the squad to practice the role in training and be ready to fill in if needs be.

As it is I'd suggest that if Lilley's distribution is good enough, he should be given the chance for the rest of this year. We have enough experienced players to work out a defensive alignment that can fit him in. Its not the best option but I don't think any of the other suggestions are either - I certainly wouldn't move Moon away from the centres. Given his size maybe Sutcliffe might be the best third choice hooker option.

Fair enough if people don think Moon would work at hooker, but I honestly don't understand the argument that we can't afford to move Moon away from centre......he simply isn't that vital that we NEED to keep him there at all cost.

Let's be honest. If I said one of the back 5 would have to miss the rest of the season through injury, which would you hope it was......if being honest most would pick Moon. He's the least vital.

My main worry about moving Moon to hooker is that I've never seen him play there. That the coaching staff, who get more chance to evaluate the players on the practice field, have preferred several others makes me wonder whether he'd be as effective there as you think.

Neither would I choose to sacrifice Moon from the back 5. Briscoe would be my pick as Hanley, by and large, covered well. I'm less convinced by the options for replacing Moon, preferring instead to see Ablett at SR given current form.