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..

Correct.

Nope.

Unless you consider fixtures against the Exiles as internationals.

I am not knocking Ablett who is a fine utility player and, as I said, has done well as a stand in centre. However despite his many attributes he is not a class centre and lacks speed. The international selection is more of a reflection on the dearth of class middle backs available.

With the exception of one or two, Leeds lost pretty every collision in the forwards, whether attacking or defending.

The problem with that is that it builds momentum against you and is a hard cycle to get out of. With fewer flair off the cuff type players than usual, we struggled to make much yardage, and looked short of ideas.

The reason for us losing the collisions could be a combination of a number of reasons, one of which is players ability.

I doubt there were many Leeds fans laughing but not so sure that extended to the Warrington coach, players and fans.

Outside backs on the bench are a waste of a precious place. If they're good enough they should start, if they're not then what are they doing there. But this wasn't even a versatile, experienced outside back it was one with I imagine less than 80 minutes total 1st grade rugby experience, with no record of making an impact from the bench in his previous outings, whose planned participation could, according to some, be blown off course if it rained on a day when heavy showers were forecast.



The only player the novice Keinhorst was ever going to come on to replace was Ablett at left centre. Ablett is a far better left centre at this point than Keinhorst, so Keinhorst's introduction weakened the threat there not increased it. If a second row was required (as that is where Ablett was moved to), a better solution would have been to pick a second row on the bench instead of an outside back. A fresher legged genuine second row would offer more security than a drained Ablett for the final twenty. Especially as up to Jones-Buchanan's injury on 32 mins Ablett had been defending 4th or 5th man in, switching with Jones-Buchanan so already having to defend at left second-row because of Leeds' starting hooker needing to defend at left centre.

Is there another team in the world of professional RL that defends it's starting hooker at left centre? Doubtful - I can't imagine why it hasn't caught on.



Either would have offered more than Keinhorst in the seventeen, of the two selecting Clarkson would have been the correct choice for me.



Was Webb available for selection? Where would your chosen option to select Webb have left Keinhorst or would you have played both Webb and Keinhorst and if so who would then have missed out?



When prior to kick off did Jonathan Davies say that? Was it during the build up with Clare Balding, Brian Noble and Ian Millward? If not during the build up on the live BBC TV coverage, then where?



It's a case being built around a statement I'd like to see verified first.

If Keinhorst was intended to be introduced after weathering the early stom why wasn't he introduced after weathering the early storm. The storm was forecast, did someone forget to tell McDermott. The weather can play a huge part in games and a tuned in coach will be across it like an F1 team sat on the paddock wall especially if it's likely to effect his planned substitutions.




According to Dave Woods commentary on 26 minutes he quoted a comment from Ian Millward the previous evening that he felt wet weather would suit Leeds. At half-time Brian Noble said the weather would effect Warrington's game the most and it may help Leeds. At half time the error count was 8 by Warrington and 2 by Leeds. Leeds have won the majority of their Grand Finals on wet night's at Old Trafford, where the scampering sure-footed runs by Rob Burrow have proved highly effective. Leeds are a proven wet-weather team but no you must be right that the wet-weather actually hampered Leeds' one man safety first approach while aiding Warrington's spin it wide off-loading game.

In your opinion. Not in mine. You pick a side to try an win each game match by match and this should include flexibility not wooden fixed attitudes.



Have you never considered that there may have been some doubts to the fitness of another back? But I guess the game plan was based on our need to score tries against Warrington to have any chance and although Ablett has done a good job as a replacement centre his lack of speed is a handicap at centre and Wembley could have exposed this even more. Nantwich correctly suggested this plan before the match and I agreed with the logic at the time. If as I suggest the plan was to bring Keinhorst on before half time (the same way we did with Burrow last season when we needed to concentrate on defence early on, and to give the young lad time to settle nerves) you can hardly claim Ablett would be drained when asked to move into the back row

Had you not spotted that we use Burrow in a way that best uses his talents whether he starts or comes on at 9? This means he is not worn out with heavy centre field defence and opposition cannot target to run at him to slow him down as they once did. It gives him a free ranging role that has been so successful for both him and the side. Playing a defender at 13 is meant to cover the tackles usually done by a traditional 9.



I disagree. Clarkson offers nothing with ball in hand and Ablett moving into the pack offers as good defence and better go forward. There was a case to play Moore but only instead of one of the other props. In hindsight Clarkson would have been better than Bailey but that is just hindsight.



Webb had ruled himself out of selection with his bad discipline the other week as you well know. If you care to read my post pre match you will see that I agreed with the Nantwich logic of picking Keinhorst but stated it was risky, I also said I would take the risk and pick Webb (over Keinhorst on the bench)



Yes in the pre KO build up.

The case was first muted by Nantwich and agreed by me the day before (I think it was) The BBC comments confirmed that was the Leeds dressing room plan.



The huge downpour delayed his introduction as not the best time to go for the expansive game. His delayed appearance was not critical. However what was absolutely crucial was the spate of bad discipline in the 2nd half that handed momentum and field position to Warrington. So our backs spent their time retreating with no supply of good ball and we had no chance to see what Keinhorst could do.




Well they were wrong weren't they? It didn't suit Leeds! And as I have previously said the bad weather caused Sinfield to go for the 2 instead of 6 just before half time which IMO sent the wrong message to Warrington