The halves aren't playing well. They're not creating AND they're not leading and directing. This can somewhat be understood from young halves but is very disappointing from Burrow.

I also agree that Sutcliffe takes the ball in too often instead of passing. However, I think a significant part of the blame for this lies in the lack of runners the halves have to choose to pass to. Most of the time our lack of runners are giving our halves only 2 options:
1 - a simple pass to an already marked player who isn't going particularly fast or running a particularly good line.
2 - take the ball in themselves.

Our outside runners are few in number, running poor/non-existent lines and not going fast enough.

Whilst the halves are currently poor we aren't giving them any options.

Brough would be a great signing for you without a doubt
Although it wouldn't be a popular one

I think there is something in this. Our style of play, where the line is flat and the early receivers all get the ball standing still must make trying to create very hard work when a team has no real go forward or quick PTB. Because no runners are coming onto the ball the tendency of a ball player will be to either keep it rather than give a hospital pass or go sideways.

Not buying that bull. Sutcliffe has been pinpointed as Sinfield's successor. He's failed badly. Yet the coach picks him week after week. You believe Brough wouldn't do a better job? You're on your own.

Can't remember a game when any leeds forward ran an attacking line never mind a dummy run line ,that's why we can't create space for Watkins and he gets clattered every time he gets the ball.

The earliest ball Watkins gets is when he has to drive it in on 2nd tackle after a deep kick from opposition. Last year, when Aiton went crabbing right he got Watkins into space but with our current struggles he and moon end up doing prop like drives

Totally agree but why do we try to play the same systems week after week when clearly it's not working . We must have the best attacking centres in superleague one of the best wide runners and ball handlers in ferres but these type of players are getting destroyed by using them as prop forwards.Surely the coaching staff and players have a big enough skill set to alter the systems,or have they?

There was a point on Moday when Sutcliffe was shouting at Garbutt and Cuthbertson and gesturing them to step back to make their movements more of an option and neither of them moved, when he got the ball the defence were already in his face.
There was another moment vs Cas when we broke and Sutcliffe was calling for it open (probably looking to put in a crossfield kick as he did vs Saints last year) but the ball went blind where the defence had already numbered up.

The problems are not solely in the halves (though they need to be more aware of the tackle count)
If that had happened to danny brough hed be likely to start fight with his own team mates!

Interesting that the Roosters are having the same problem with young halfbacks - who after the WCC were being lauded as being of a standard SL can't produce, and yet now are both shot. Similarly they seem to be waiting for their experienced halfback to return (Pearce).

If we're being honest here the problem at halfback isn't Sutcliffe or Lilley, its Burrow. In McGuire's absence he should have been able to step up and take over responsibility for running the team. As it is he's been found wanting and dumped back to bench hooker.

Lilley and Sutcliffe simply don't have years of experience to draw on to be able to grind out performances when the team is down. What you'd expect to see is them giving cameos of increasing length as the season progresses. Dumping them in at the deep end when others are clearly out of form is a massive ask.

FWIW I still think Sutcliffe could well be the part in the long-term, so long as he can learn his trade alongside a decent partner.

I would also add that I have been disapointed in Falloon, a hooker should be an organisor as well and dictate where the play moves and often when the time is right to send in a forward or get the ball outwide. When we needed a drop goal he sent play away from the sticks on the 4th tackle meaning we couldnt go for it and then decided to throw a hospital pass instead of trying to force a repeat set.
Maybe all tthat coke has eroded his brain cells so he cant count to 6 anymore!

Glanville (who was superb for the Cowboys) did the same in golden point extra time in Brisbane on Friday. In that game Morgan shot the ball to Feldt who scores in the corner except the referees give a harsh/incorrect forward pass call. Similar hooker brain fades on the last with Burrow/Thurston setting for the drop. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

So getting back to the original thread.

Is there any substance to the Brough rumour. Personally I think having a quality player creating competition for places can only be a good thing.

Also I do reckon people saying Leeds would not want a certain Jamie peacock as he was Bull scum. Now I struggle to see who was the most popular Sinny or JP

funny that

be interesting to see the dynamics between brough, maguire and of course ferris - Handbags at dawn methinks

Nope. No chance of us signing him. Isn't happening.

I can see it now, chants on the Southstand going from 'DAAAAANY BROUGH..IS A W@n*£R... IS A W@n*£R!! " to "DANNY BROUGH IS F'ING BRILLIANT!!!!"




Not for me though, hope its just rumours.

Not sure he would be a natural fit, however depends who else they may be able to get and when. He would certainly provide a lot more ability to get ball wide and help unleash the back line and his kicking game would make a huge difference. He would take pressure of some others who appear to be overplaying. To paraphrase Eddie waring " he'd attract a lot of attention"

Prominent brow like that, and people question that there isn't a bit of Neanderthal gene still floating around?

Ill support anyone in a Leeds shirt and 99.99% of fans are the same ( if were being honest Batemans 'dirty tactics' would become 'gamesmanship' if we signed him)
But I still think Brough would be an unneccesary signing, with his attitude even being potentially harmful

according to luke robinson on radio hes in talks with us, might be a smokescreen who knows?

Maybe he's looking for a short term gig who knows.

Like for like replacement for Sinfields equally strange brow 'growth'... Neanderthal genes, or some other reason for bizarre bone growth... I wonder....

As for signing him - as others have said, he would be a good short term fix, offering a number of things we're missing... His attitude stinks at times though - but is that just passion and will to win... I'm of the opinion it's a bit of that, but he's also just not a very endearing character....

HGH!

I met Brough once, seemed a nice genuine bloke. On the pitch though there's few players I dislike more.

That's only half the problem with signing him, he's 35 now and would be the shortest of short term fixes, might as well wait a few week and persuade Kev to come back.

brough is 33 now

and has two more years on his contract