Here's the thing, though. It's the order in which those wins and losses occurred that bothers me more than the overall number of wins and losses (although that wasn't too awesome, given that we finished sixth). The mantra has always been (because it's usually been true) that this great team always comes good when it counts. It's pretty hard to reconcile "coming good when it counts" with the feeble form we showed at the end of last season. We actually "came good" in February, March and April this year.

People talk about the Bradford and London games but the ones that sit with me are Saints away and at home. When we played them away we were in good form and playing a weakened team. But their youth and enthusiasm did our very poor tactics of playing up the middle. That seemed to be the end of our flowing rugby. Then the game at home worked out well for McD. Again, they were there for the taking. But Moon's sending off gave McD a 're out of jail free car's. We played e game with 14 men which was diabolical - and because the coach 'didn't think feel the need' to play 2 of our bench.

I can imagine our leaders getting the team up for the big games, but tactically our coach is well off. When teams work out our game plan, he can't seem to react.

A good coach looks at his team and plays the best way for the personnel. Looking at our team it's the backline that is strongest but he continued to try and win a forward battle we struggled to do.

The biggest signing for me this off season won't be on the playing side, but an assistant who can bring attacking structure and challenge Brian.

We also played against very weakened sides against Wigan at Magic, and against Warrington at their place. Lost them both.

The team fell short on a number of occasions. Do you imagine that when GH and Brian review the season that fact won't be at the forefront of their minds? It's only natural that many fans consider matters in identical fashion.

Part of the 'problem' IMO is what seems an ever increasing over reliance on the 'grinding tactics'

These can work in poor conditions and have served us well on damp October nights in Manchester but this season especially we seem to have relied on this tactic more and more in all conditions.

The problem with the 'grind' is that it doesn't blow teams away, unless the grind wears down and tires the other team out so that you can then up the gears and get the rewards by scoring the points later on.

This season we haven't been capable of going up the gears often enough and the problem with that is the tactics keep the game tight and therefore the other team is kept in the game longer therefore fatigue doesn't come into it as much as if the game is kept close and tight the opposition retains their enthusiasm and confidence etc for longer.

There have been so many games this year that we've lost towards the end where we've only started throwing stuff at the opposition when going behind late on and haven't managed to real them in as by then the opposition have 'grown a 3rd leg' through keeping in the wrestle with us and then taking the lead late on and we then try and hit them with our 'off the cuff' style.

We have an awesome looking back line on paper but don't seem to have either the tactics or half backs to be able to utilise them to their maximum potential which is very frustrating to watch.

I would agree with a lot of the above. The away match at Saints was an example of a problem which was also present in a few games we won. Specifically, we struggled to break down pretty much any decent defence for most of the season (the few exceptions coming early on). There were a few times when we were dominant for long periods, but never really put the game to bed. In a few cases (Wire at home also stands out) we got through on some very tough defence, but I felt that we'd had the field position to put the game to bed and not done enough with the ball.

If anything, watching other teams on Sky, that tendency for both teams in most matches to have spells in ascendancy has seemed more pronounced than ever this year, and it's been the teams who are best able to put points on the board who come out on top. We didn't score enough points when we had our good spells last year. Our defence was very good, which was great to see. We need to hang onto that and put some more emphasis on attack. Not because it's pretty and adds entertainment, but because we'd win more matches.

That game in particular sticks in my mind. We made some very easy yards up the field, and countless times put ourselves in good attacking positions. But we could just not find a way through. Saints defence in their own 20 was good, but we just kept going and going with the same plays that werent working. A lack of plan b....a phrase i've uttered more than once from the terraces this year.

We cant utilize a sub bench properly let alone having more than 1 game plan up our sleeve.

Those consecutive games we lost last year and some quite late on concerned me .It went from one to another and it got to the stage where I was expecting a defeat

An old saying, but if you want to go sideways with the ball in rugby league you first have to go forward.

By putting teams on the back foot with good drives and quick play the ball, you earn the right to exploit a retreating defence by getting your backs into space.

Leeds don't have a single forward who can dominate collision with the ball in hand and generate good ruck speed. Not one. The starting props look like they need a winch to get them off the floor every time they are tackled, and the bench options are powderpuff runners who get dominated in the tackle way too easily.

That's why to an extent it doesn't really matter who Leeds have at dummy half or at half-back, as they are getting zero space to work in and constantly coming up against set defensive lines. Before Leeds can unleash that backline and not have to rely on it creating chances for itself (as it did in the first half of the season pretty well), they need to have some forwards who can create space and momentum for it to work with.

Yet in the first half against Cas (and quite a lot of the second half) in the cup final everything was simple for us based on quick PTB's and dominant collisions by the forwards. If Clarke had been playing for us that day we would have destroyed Cas completely by half time. We did pretty well in the semi against Warrington as well.

I also know very well that general thinking is that you have to go forward before you can go wide, I like to think of it more of a rule that if you do make the half break up the middle and get a quick PTB then you MUST go wide.
But, if you don't stretch a defence you allow it to condense and then you will never win up the middle if the defence can safely stack the midfield and put 3-4 guys into the tackle without worrying about covering the wide areas. There has to be a tangible threat out wide that needs to be covered, so you have to attack with width sometimes - even if you are not winning the battle up-front, or use a kicking game that forces defenders to stay in wide areas.
My view is that this Leeds team does not surprise anypne when they go wide. With the pace we have we should look to attack wide 2/3 tackle from in or around our 20, and do something that I don't see anyone doing much these days, double up the centres. Get Moon and Watkins on the same side of the pitch linking well inside our 40 early in the tackle count, add Hardaker to that and watch the trouble it would cause the defence.

One thing Leeds used to do really well was attack from deep i.e. their own thirty with quick short paces out wide to the likes of Senior. We have potentially a really good backline for that type of attack but we don't seem to possess the same level of speed and skill to execute these plays.

We have never seriously troubled sides in the own 20 - we haven't had a half back with a half decent kicking game nor the attacking structure to create openings so it is no surprise to me that we cannot break sides down in their 20.

The only real set play we have is the dummy half pass to a prop (usually Peacock) Sinfield sweeping round and receiving it off Peacock, with a wedge play (lead runner and Zak out the back)... That's it... The grand sum of our attacking prowess in the opposition 20. This is usually preceded by 3 'nothing plays' to set it up, and if it doesn't work, kick to the opposite corner for Hall.

There is zero creativity in the 'red zone'. A big problem is that our halves are no threat with the ball in hand, so the defence can pick of the runners knowing they'll have the speed to react if either of our halves take the line on themselves. Only Burrow is a threat ball in hand.

The other issue with that wedge play, is that we never use the short ball to the "decoy" runner. It's obvious that the ball is going to go out the back, usually because the decoy goes through too early to be a threat to take the ball. Just once or twice a game, hit the lead runner with a no-look flat pass. Make the inside defenders think before they pass on to the outside players.

The point of mentioning the Magic game was that along with the Saints game you mentioned was that they were the only losses in the first half of the year, conveniently the only two matches you remember from that period.

You mention as has some others about how Wigan beat the cr@p out of us at Magic and others have said it showed teams how to beat us. Well Leeds being "soft" in the forwards and Wigan playing "tough" is hardly new information that people only realised at the Magic weekend. Why couldn't Wigan beat us at Headingley a few weeks earlier if it's that simple using that ploy? People can't honestly argue that Wigan only just stumbled across and tried this tactic against for the first time at the Etihad. Why didn't Warrington or Cas take advantage of this in the Cup? Why did Saints scrape past us with 12 men if we are so easy to batter?

Actually the first 'warning signs' came a week before Magic at Castleford. Yeah we picked up the win against a Cas team on a short turnaround but we started to show signs of dropping off.

It also seems important to point out (even though some will hate this as they don't like "excuses"icon_wink.gif but the time we dropped off also coincided with losing both starting hookers. Shortly after Hardaker and Ablett would pick up various bans (the former proving quite costly IMO in the home loss to Hudds where BJB had a 'mare against Brough). Sinfield missed a few with a back injury, Leuluai missed some too as did a couple more guys.

When we played Saints in the cup we had Hardaker, Sinfield, McGuire and Burrow all playing......those four wouldn't all feature again together until HKR at home. Rusty on that game but when Burrow came on then we slowly worked some good play in the final quarter. The week after home vs Cas......probably our best showing in the second half of the season (with all those players available) and one we should've won until Sinfield's brainfart. We then take all those key guys out again for the shambles vs Bradford and London but see what we're capable of in the cup games with those guys in. We then had no McGuire or Burrow for the Saints and Wigan losses. We then lost to Catalans in the playoffs.....granted like I've mentioned, we simply weren't good enough on the day (yet Briscoe catches the ball and we're through for how poor we were) it can happen in sport. Whilst some are loathe to even hear the words "Challenge Cup" and to them as individuals it was a distant memory it's foolish to not recognise that teams in many sports fail to lift again after a cup win......professional players they may be but rising again to the standard required in a few weeks after getting the one prize they probably wanted most isn't as straight forward as some would like to make it seem for the sake of their argument.

When reviewing the season, if you're going to just focus on the losses then you might want to look at the line-ups and see how many key starters and how many of the spine in particular were missing in those games.

No. Its easier to ignore the cup altogether.

I do agree with the fact that Leeds seem to lack a real structure to the attack in the opposition 20. I think what DHM and others are saying, whilst seeming to disagree partially is actually the same thing. Why three forward drives before even thinking about passing? Why no genuine dummy runners on every play? Its all about structure, and for years I've found it hard to understand why a team with potentially four playmakers on the field at any time looks so much more comfortabkle making plays a long way out than near the line.

Having said that, I do think that we lack a real power forward close to the line - I doubt very much if any decent SL team is that worried when Peacock, Leuluai or any other of our forwards get the ball 'on the charge' near the line.

I don't see too much disagreement overall. I agree with you that we don't offer a forward threat near the line, my view is that the big guys up the middle don't offer an offload threat and we don't have a hooker who can power over from a dominant PTB on the line (I do think it's rare that any big guy hammers over right up the middle), and we don't get our strong back rowers (Ablett and Delaney) in the position to run over half backs out wide near the line either.

It is strange that our playmakers seem to run out of options near the opposition line, I guess you do have to factor in the reduced attacking space and the defence intensifies and has less distance to retreat, but we spent this season unable to convert field position and general domonance in the game into points. A lot has been said about how many games we lost by less than a score, but you could say the opposite - how many games we won by far less of a margin than we should have and how many of those games we lost by less than a score should have been put to bed if we'd been able to score points more freely.
All points to an attacking structure not maximising the talent we have out wide for a lot of the reasons mentioned (I don't think it's just one thing).

You make the problems out to be injuries - injuries are a part of the game, it didn't stop Saints who arguably had more severe injuries to more key players? How would Leeds have gone without Hardaker, Sinfield and Ablett for a big chunk of the season?

Do you think with an ageing squad the injury situation will get better or worse? IMO the situation will worsen - one of my considerations as to why the team will not make the four. As you have already shown in your excuses post the depth of the squad is was simply not there last year so how is that going to improve this year with the addition of one player?

The point about the CC is mute in my view - some like you use it as an reason for the poor form at the end of the season but it doesn't explain the poor form from May to August - I suppose the excuse is injuries!!

The Wigan thing - the platform was set as soon as Bateman stood up JP in game one - Wane saw the soft underbelly, he exposed it in game two which was an embarrassment as a very weak Wigan side showed who was physically going to boss the game. The third game wasn't even a contest. No team in SL have the aggressive culture that Wigan have - no team has a McIllorum that will lead from the front in such a confrontational manner. That is why Warrington and Cas couldn't do that in the cup.

The first half of the season is irrelevant in this argument IMO - the second have is the most tangible evidence we have of where the team is - with all the players fit and something on the line at home the team could no longer perform.

With ageing players performances are going drop off in the second half of the season. You cannot reverse the laws of physics especially with an average quality squad which relies on old players being on the field a lot.

You also fail to address the quality of the coaching and his ability to motivate the squad to deliver. There is only so long that players can listen to the same message and respond positively. Has our attack improved under McDermott? have we developed any new plays?

Most on here believe Leeds "toss it off" through the season, I don't buy that I think 5/6th is realistically where we are as squad and I don't see anything that has happened in the close season to change that view.

ATEOTD we lost 10 games ,finished 6th and went out of the play offs with a wimper at the first hurdle that is not good enough and no amount of stats , line ups or past victories/failures will make it good enough either.
Yes injuries/suspensions play a part but ST's showed they can be overcome irrespective of opinions about Teams allegedly "tossing it off" or not taking some fixtures as seriously as others.
It was great to see the stalwarts finally get the CC winners medal but it doesn't take away how poor we were in the SL for the last 3 months.
The squad needs freshening up and and so does the Coaching staff whether we suffered 4 point losses or 14 point losses doesnt really matter in the grand scheme of things a lot of the "performances" were one dimensional and lacked quality ,skill & the ability to adapt during a game to change tactics.
JP has been a great servant a real God amongst men and we also have so many Club Legends/immortals still here but age is catching up with some more than others and IF changes aren't done this year AND next i think it will set us back 2/3 years or worse especially if we have to replace 4-5 or 6 KEY players at once.

We couldn't agree more!

kindest regards,

Wigan & Saints (replaced 14 players between them in 2014) xxx

No I don't make the problems out to be injuries alone, but they're a consideration. Think most would agree that Saints had things fall nicely for them in the playoffs. After they beat us at Langtree they picked up just 3 more points than us in the remainder of the year and we threw away 4 vs London and Bradford to concentrate on the cup.....Ooops sorry forgot we can't mention the cup as it shouldn't be a factor. Hey did anybody read the article on Kyle Amor on the YEP when he said.....

"The front rower also felt Leeds did injury-ravaged Saints a favour by knocking them out of the Challenge Cup. He said: “That was the best thing for us, because it allowed us to do a mini-pre-season and go over a few things and it worked wonders for us."

Sorry better go tell Kyle Amor he can't mention the CC. Maybe if we had that mini-pre-season we could've fixed up a few things that were clearly wrong, perhaps now in proper pre-season they will be.



Of course we'll pick up injuries, will they be as bad as this year, who knows? I seriously doubt we'lol lose both starting hookers at the same time for 3 months. Is the team's age mean we'll pick up more injuries? Well like you said previously Saints probably were hit harder yet they aren't known as an old team. Difference with injuries next year with the new format is that we'll see a return to previous years where players play busted more whereas McDermott tried resting this year. That btw the way is something that will happen across the board for all teams with only 4 playoff spots up for grabs.



No I mention the CC because actually getting to and winning the final DOES effect how your season pans out. It's utter stubborness and foolish from you to keep saying it should be ignored when reviewing a season. Before we played London, McDermott in an interview was asked if the team had gotten "Wembley fever" yet after beating Wire the week before, his replied that the team has had Wembley fever ever since we beat Saints in Round 5 and knew with the draw (against lower league for the next round) that we would probably be in the semis. Now I'm not saying that is right for the squad to have allowed themselves to think so far ahead when they still had a big chunk of league games to come, I'm just pointing out what the team's mindset was. Whether right or wrong, the team wanted the cup most, it was the main target, even a close friend spoke to one of the guys post Wembley who said that "all thoughts this year have been about Wembley, Wembley, Wembley."

That's gone now, it's not going to be this shadow hanging over them about whether they win it. You really can't (or shouldn't) underestimate the significance of us getting that cup win 'out of the way', whether or not people on here wanted us to win.



Like I said before, the Leeds soft underbelly thing was hardly a new thing, nor was Wigan going tough. Are you seriously saying Wane only stumbled upon this when he saw Bateman and Peacock have handbags? Doesn't that incident prove that they tried to rattle the Leeds cages at Headingley, yet they lost comfortably to us.



Well why the worry that teams will copy the blueprint if they aren't capable of playing like Wigan.



Is it? Considering how little we had anything close to our best team out I'd say it isn't.



Wasn't all fit though clearly, Moon wasn't ok by a long stretch and I don't think McGuire and Burrow had properly recovered from the injuries that kept them out post Wembley.



Yes we like to keep our main players on a lot whereas other mix it up a bit more. A lot of that is because of the top 8 system, think it'll be different from all teams now and squad depth you won't see as much across the board.



Except for when he helped deliver the trophy the aimed for most this season you mean?



I agree about there's only so long the same voice can be heard and I have said McDermott will have run his course by the end of 2015. I've address the issue will coaching on previous threads throughout the year, in fact towards the latter part of 2013 whilst most we just crying about "we're too old in the forwards" I pointed out our real flaw was execution in the final 20m, glad to see others catch up this year (likewise for when I kept saying Watkins get a free pass on this board, people now seemingly agree that he needs to shoulder some blame for his showings and not his teammates all the time).

I don't see that many games just now, but listening to the commentaries of those games we lost in the late stages of the season I could sense that in the last 10 minutes the oppositions tails went up as though they could feel that Leeds were there for the taking.

Wane saw for the first time that JP wasn't able to put a youngster back in his box - he had gone soft, the way Bateman just batted him off was a surprise to most, Leeds don't have any other hard men. I don't think that was a tactic in game 1 it just happened. In the second game his tactic was to get his team to ruffle a few feathers and it worked. I never said I was worried that Leeds had gone soft what I said was the team were never the same again after Wigan beat them up at Magic.

You are not reading - or you are reading what you want it to say - on the challenge cup The played one game between April and the semi in August so that should not have impacted the league form all this CC fever is just McDermott making excuses for the team's inability to perform.

How can Leeds not play their old players for extended periods? what options have they got that McDermott will use to replace Peacock, JJB, Sinfield, McGuire, Burrow, Kylie?

People have been talking about issues in the opponents 20 since Tony Smith's days so don't start claiming you were the first you are one of number of bandwagon jumpers on that score. When you main playmaker hasn't got a short kicking game of any quality you will not create in that area and Leeds have had the same playmaker since 2003.

Time will tell how next season pans out - I personally think the top 4 is beyond them - this team is in a steep decline that I don't see being reversed. The quality of play under the whole McDermott reign has been shoddy even the wins in finals have been without any any real style. It is a team that used to be able to raise its game 4/5 times a year that will not be good enough next season.

In reality you could extend this to us being poor in SL (regular rounds) every year under our current coach with league finishes of 5th,5th, 3rd and 6th

We simply have not been consistently good in regular season footy since 2009 but how we finished the 2011 and 2012 seasons with play off success ironed over a lot of the 'issues' in most peoples minds.

Put it this way had 2011 and 2012 not ended like they did (with GF success after garbage regular season campaigns)then IMO McDermott and quite a few of the current players would no longer be here as GH would have been forced to act before now

Really? That's what you're going with? F**king really???

Instead of just accepting that Leeds were better than Wigan on the day even though they'll have had a similar gameplan to Magic you come up with that?

That Wigan and Wane, who had been Wigan coach for nearly 2 and a half years at that point and a few years under McGuire as assistant when Wigan developed a reputation for their 'rough' tactics only realised and tried to be rough with Leeds after Wane saw Bateman have handbags with Peacock? The same Wane who was recorded a few months earlier giving his players free reign to create mayhem and knock people out? That he and Wigan didn't realise about Leeds' soft underbelly until that petty moment between Bateman and Peacock?

Have you been smoking drugs? Are you so obsessed with thinking, telling, spreading the news that all is rubbish at Leeds that you can come up with such a ridiculous theory?

Even those who think Leeds are in trouble next year and won't make the top 4 would surely laugh at the idea that that 'moment' and game at Headingley was some sort of realisation for Wane and Wigan as to how to approach Leeds.