One of the most boring games I've ever attended

I prefer games that end 46-46 (or was it 44-44???)
Now that was a strange game! Sheffield I think?

Remember the team gettin boo'd off when they beat Huddersfield 52-46 back in 2001?

I prefer low-scoring games with a bit of biff thrown in like [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62XSX_w8aQkthis one![/url

Forgot about that.


And that

I don't see why you can't do both (play a brand but keep it tight in defence).

Defence is a major problem for Leeds. The re-introduction of TMFMISL will help, but we need a over-haul in this area.

In our first 3 games we have been shown up down the middle round the ruck in 2 of these games (Bulls/Quins).

Because of lazy players not doing their job.

Leeds have the natural talent to score points, and yes Mac is right - they shouldn't just use it to get-out-of jail they should input it into their whole game. But playing a 'brand' would be much more effective with the firm foundations of a solid defence. A defence we did used to have. Leeds don't enjoy tackling, they don't make the most of it and they don't punish their opponents into the ground with it. It's a huge flaw.

Dig-in, roll the sleeves up, pin teams into their own 20/30. Start your set at the half way line and good things will happen. It's not rocket science, it's logic. Alot of the players seems to want to be part of a free flowing move but they are not so quick in the defensive line.

Hull KR v Queensland?

Is that Robin Whitfield telling the virtually unconcious Queensland player to get to his feet and stop milking it?

Yes it was.

I still have nightmares about Queensland demolishing us on that tour (50 odd 2 I think). Physically they seemed to come from a different planet.

The defense so far this season has been dreadful. We need to improve our attitude in this area. You don't win many games conceding 34-30 points a game, especially in the big games.

I hope we continue to play attacking rugby, but the defense MUST improve.

I too really prefer an exciting 'end to end', as long as we stay ahead, but that 70-0 against Saints was pure joy nevertheless!

Better defence shouldn't have to come at the expense of attacking RL, and I am by no means advocating a safety first approach. Unfortunately for Leeds, entertaining RL appears to be coming at the expense of defence.

Prior to last season I tended to be optimistic that Leeds could handle anything thrown at them. There were games against Saints in particular in which we were dominated in terms of possession but refused to yield on the scoreboard. The CC game against Wigan is perhaps the most recent example I can think of this happening.

Leeds have pretty much always played entertaining RL since I can remember, but this has rarely been a hallmark of success. The Schofield and Harris days were fun but we didn't win much silverware - and this was not due to a lack of any attacking threat. Our back-to-back-to-back success was grounded in uncompromising defence first and foremost IMO. The big score against Saints in 2007 wouldn't have happened if we hadn't physically battered them in the preceding game at KR. Just look at the WCC - both teams are good exponents of the 'defence wins matches' mantra, even though they hardly shirk attacking (although Wigan did seem rather one-dimensional in that particular game).

The way Leeds have [iplayed in the first three games [/iI can't see us nilling anyone this season. I hope to be proven wrong!

I think your under estimating how incredibly difficult a job that is. Not many teams fail to score tries in a match.

You need to differentiate a little more between good defence and nilling teams. Any club side considers limiting the oppossition to two tries as good defence.

My view on the "entertaining rugby" propaganda (along with the criticism of the current SL champions playing style) emanating from GH-HQ is that it's a thinly veiled admission that winning any silverware this season is unlikely.

It's otherwise known as GETTING YOUR EXCUSES IN EARLY!

Fair point: nilling is the ideal, but if prioritised, should lead to better defence overall, provided the coaching and playing staff are up to it. I'm not underestimating how difficult it is. I have no expectation in this area other than Leeds making defence more of a priority. The public statements about playing more entertaining RL matched with on-field performances suggest more needs to be done. As you say, two tries would be a good starting point!

I'd suggest "less points than whoever we're playing" was a better starting point.

Now [ithat[/i is how to speed up the play the ball.

I didnt see Leeds have one decent defensive performance in 2010, I hope there will be some this year

I find a dominant defensive performance very entertaining

The one interesting comment about defence that you hear a lot from the NRL is that a lot of it is down to attitude. That's not to diminish the importance of structure and simple quality (as England have shown regularly against Australia) but a determination to scramble at all costs is equally important. That would appear to be where a lot of Leeds' problems lie.

Personally I have been saying that we wont do anthing in the first half of this season - but lets see what happens from May onwards.

Having just watched the "highlights" on Rhinos TV it would be remiss of me not to mention Buderus's pish weak and appalling effort for Quins 4/5th(?) try.

I'm not shocked it has been glossed over given Buderus god like status to most posters on here mind.

It hasn't been glossed over at all - rhinoms gave it a 'Try Assist' on this week's Opta thread.

It was reminiscent of a similar effort last season V Huddersfield at Headingley.

I can imagine the level of reaction being similar had Diskin come up with an "effort" like that. No, really.

Then I'd guess you'd be surprised how little people care about a Bradford player missing a tackle around these parts.

I'm assuming your talking about the Chris Bailey try here so ignore it if I'm not.

It's pretty much all Watkins' fault IMO. Buderus has to try and contain the man and the ball on his own 3 yards from the line, a difficult task which he did for long enough to allow either his inside or outside defender the time to get to the tackle and help complete it. Instead, Watkins rushes out at the gap between Bailey and Burnett anticipating the offload/intercept (a terrible defensive play when they were 4 on 4 down that channel) and Sinfield (who's sliding across) tries to compensate by getting to the other side of the tackle as Bailey has gone for Buderus' outside shoulder due to the huge gap left by Watkins.

Buderus can do better there by all means, but he's also entitled to a bit of help and he got none.

When was the try scored? Perhaps the wisdom of playing him for 80 minutes a game needs to be questioned...