For 70 minutes the only try we had scored was up the middle from short range.

The selection was a joke.

I'm almost certain there was no plan to bring Keinhorst on after 30 minutes. If there was then the loss of Jonesy made it even easier to get him on and it was still decided not to.

The weather almost gave us a chance but to give McDermott an excuse because of it is ludicrous

The players are the only ones who could have affected a change to Saturday's result. The fact that they were comprehensively outplayed is hardly the fault of the fans. The players tried as hard as the could sadly to man they under performed. Giving away silly penalties at crucial times - who is to blame for that the fans?

This team has delivered some great performances when it has really mattered Saturday was not one of them - as fans are we supposed say everything is fine? If you dare to fairly criticise you are not deserving, Gotcha's post is barmy but so is that notion of yours.

Missed McGuire though!!

going to be controversial here but i don't think mcguire would have made a e of difference.
we were always on the back foot, our pack were handed there s and he wouldn't have had the chance to shine

We looked clueless when we did have an opportunity near their line plus with Burrow not being 100% we only had one kicker as a result he was easy to shut down.

i really don't think it would have mattered mate. i love mcguire to bits but we simply weren't good enough

I agree about us not being good enough - I struggle to see how we will close that gap but then I thought that last year.

Early in the game McGuire may have made a difference,Peacock made two breaks and it's normally McGuire on his shoulder,unfortunately no one else was there to back him up.He would also have been another kicking option but playing behind a pack that was battered doesn't help.

McGuire would have taken the pressure of sinfield and is by the far the most creative player we have attacking the line.

Not saying we would have won because Warrington played really well

Which is it barry or bary?

Not that it matters when it's Brian anyway.

Agree and disagree at the same time. I think having mags in the team would have improved us as a team. More organised in attack another organiser and kicker.
That said like you rightly point out our pack were beaten and having mags although would have improved the team would not have changed the result.

Regarding the bench I can see the plan to utilise keinhorst but for me was a wrong decision. I don't know why we started with rob instead of starting with Lunt and having rob on bench that worked so well last year near the end.

Top form side if you conveniently exclude their last game. Whatever happened to you're only as good as your last game?

Was Webb unavailable for selection?

Seems to me McDermott deliberately chose to be without Webb's brand of professionalism for this match and who could blame him.



The downpour started inbetween Kirke scoring Leeds' opening try and Sinfield kicking the conversion to make it 6-6. Leeds didn't take the lead until three minutes later by which time the downpour had turned into a light drizzle.

In relation to Keinhorst what evidence is there to suggest he would have been introduced any earlier than he eventually was, which incidentally was in the 56th minute ?



When do you think Leeds' discipline problem started? For me it was not long after they had taken the lead and it began with Jones-Buchanan's typical over-eagerness in the defensive line. That said Hodgson also conned Silverwood by dummying the play the ball right on his own line.



No need for a question mark there really, unless you're questioning your own opinion?

Did it rain, sorry downpour in 2010? Poor conditions usually lessen the difference in performance levels between teams. I agree with those that opined on the day that the poor weather on Saturday was more to Leeds' advantage than Warringtons offload led game. That would make sense to me and Warrington did appear to struggle more than Leeds to play the ball without knocking on as their more urgent approach came unstuck for a while in the conditions.



The hand McDermott had been dealt was in having two weeks to prepare for McGuire's absence. Isn't that his job? He might also have a bigger squad available if he wasn't so keen to offload some of them mid-season and ship others out on loan.

Smith has rotated his squad throughout the year, including Briers and Hodgson, to keep certain players fresh, looking at other options and formations in readiness for such a reasonably likely eventuality.

I thought it was Barrie, with an "ie".

...but as you say, it doesn't matter when you've got the wrong person completely.

It is Barrie as in Barrie McDermott but I didn't want to labour the point like Loretta tried to in Life Of Brian - and that was Brian Cohen not Brian McDermott.

We nearly changed my brothers middle name to Loretta by Deed Poll as a stag weekend prank - if it wasn't down to the fact that no-one could manage to get their hands on my brothers credit card that he doesn't have a girls middle name.

Loretta was specifically chosen as my bro is a big Python fan.

Anybody who thinks a plan involving moving a starting threequarter during a game is somehow a good idea is plain daft. Nobody does it for a reason. If Keinhorst is the better centre then start him there. If Ablett is the better centre then leave him there for 80 minutes. You do not PLAN to move 1-5. Its the sort of nonsense somebody trying to be clever would think of.

As for Clarkson I wasn't suggesting him on the bench, I was suggesting he start at 13 - even in poor form with the ball his mobility in defence would have been useful based on the painfully slow defence our forwards showed.

The selection was a risk yes, but not a joke. Webb, one of our best attackers over the years, had ruled himself out of the reckoning due in to bad discipline and form, and McGuire, another of our key players was out injured. This left the coach needing 2 replacement strike players. Therefore one obvious positive option was to play young Keinhorst who had done well the week before and had been knocking on the door of selection for several weeks. The other more negative option was to play another prop, in Moore, which would have increased the number of our props to 6 on the day! or another negative option was to go for Clarkson who is a good defender but offers nothing with ball in hand.

I had posted my view prior to the game that to play Keinhorst was a good but risky option but that I expected the coach to go with the extra forward. I also said that I would have taken the risk to play Webb.

Why are you "almost certain there was no plan to bring Keinhorst on after 30 minutes" Jonathan Davies had said on the BBC prior to kick off that he understood that Leeds were planning to bring him on towards the end of the first half. This indicated a logical game plan to try and hold Warrington early doors with a defensive game and then open up a bit more having weathered the early storm. What changed that gameplan was the heavy rainfall which made a more attacking style before half time too risky, so they brought on another forward and held the youngster back.

I do not agree that the weather almost gave us a chance as our game plan was working before it came down. In fact the change in the weather could have been our downfall as it probably was the main factor in Sinfield choosing to go for 2 points instead of 6 just before half time. This decision possibly gave Warrington a mental advantage.

Ablett has done well as a stand in centre but at best that is all he is. Having gone for Keinhorst I would have started him however IMO it is understandable that for this game the coaches wanted to play a defensive game early on and perhaps wanted to allow his nerves to settle down a bit before bringing him on. Nothing daft about that. Indeed it is nonsense to accept you can change the forwards in a match but not the backs.

There may have been a couple of strange selections, but personally I thought there were 2 or 3 huge decisions that went against us which changed the momentum of the game.. which we couldn't afford to happen if we were to win as Warrington are a better side. We needed a bit of luck to have a chance and didn't get it...

Graham Murray used to PLAN to move his 1 during the game every week and keep a reserve full back on the bench. It worked quite succesfully.

Didn't he recently play an international at that position?

I thought the Leeds side in the Final was pretty unrecognisable from the one that beat Wigan in the semi. In the semi Leeds seemed to play with a lot more intensity in defence and looked more threatening in attack too. Losing McGuire obviously influenced the attack but defence? I was disappointed with the Leeds line speed and the space around the ruck was vast.

The second half was all Warrington as they strangled Leeds and made them play in their own quarter for most of the game. Leeds seemed incapable of breaking out and played too much up the jumper rugby, someone like Moore would have been useful for his offload game. When they did move it wide it was like watching the Lost Loiners with wild passing to people stood still with nowhere to go.

Leeds are capable of a lot better.

Sad indictment of the depth of quality in SL really.

(I like Ablett by the way: he is undoubtedly a good, important [iclub[/i quality player)

Agree with pretty much all of that. The side needs a bit of work doing to it but I feel the main problem is the coaching..