Quote ="Homer Simpson"I thought McDermott was on a rolling 1 year contract ?'" mutual agreement is the only way Leeds can get rid of McDermott for free. If Leeds were to sack him it's three years pay out. m.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/21280579 That's when it was signed.

Quote ="Homer Simpson"I thought McDermott was on a rolling 1 year contract ?'" mutual agreement is the only way Leeds can get rid of McDermott for free. If Leeds were to sack him it's three years pay out. m.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/21280579 That's when it was signed.

I would be very surprised if when Leeds and Brian Mcdermott part company the line trotted out isn't along the lines of - 'after an unprecedented period of success for the club, it has been decided after a difficult season that now is the time for both parties to move in different directions.Blah blah blah...yours GH

Quote ="Frosties."mutual agreement is the only way Leeds can get rid of McDermott for free. If Leeds were to sack him it's three years pay out. m.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/21280579 That's when it was signed.'" Nothing official there. Only George Riley's opinion. Nothing about 3 years pay either. Guess work.

Quote ="Frosties."mutual agreement is the only way Leeds can get rid of McDermott for free. If Leeds were to sack him it's three years pay out. m.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/21280579 That's when it was signed.'" Nothing official there. Only George Riley's opinion. Nothing about 3 years pay either. Guess work.

Before Wembley we were looking comfortable but 3 of our losses came after that when we lost 3 on the trot and looked knackered.

The 2004 team went out of the cup in the 5th round.

Flip their cup runs around. The 2015 team go out in the early rounds and the 2004 team go all the way to the final then I'd hazard a guess that the W/L records would alter a bit.

Well actually I would say his organising in defence is missed. However whilst the defence hasn't been great look at some of the totals we've conceded....

.....if you said at the start of the year we'd concede 14 points away to Salford you'd say fair enough and expect us to have scored more than them to win. Likewise vs Cas, they score 16....yeah not such a total we couldn't out score, the Wire game vs first week, even Wakey at home if you said they'll score 20 you'd imagine we'd have scored more. Granted been a couple of bad ones like the Widnes game and HKR.

But it's the attack barely being able to score that's the problem and the attack we had last year was set up to suit the players we still have here. It wasn't a structured, disciplined, need a wise head like Sinfield to guide us through the plan setup. It was keep the ball alive, throw an offload and don't be held down by a plan......ideal really for a team who wouldn't have a wise old head to guide them and hold their hands through a more structured detailed attacking game plan. So Sinfield's absence doesn't explain why these players can't be scoring more points as the style of attack last year wasn't one that was designed with Sinfield in mind or played to his strengths of controlling games. I dare say at the start of last season Sinfield was actually the weak link in games as the style we were going for really didn't suit him as a player before he got injured and missed a few and had no trouble scoring in wins vs Wigan and away to Cas and Catalans in one of our best little sequences of results from last year so proof the players can do it without Sinfield holding their hands.

They actually showed in the first half vs NQC that they could do it and that's the most the attack has resembled last year's in terms of keeping it alive and making the oppositions defence having to make an extra effort to get to the offloaded player, however because it was against an NRL defence you don't get as much reward. If we reproduced similar in the league games we would've scored enough to win a number of those games we lost but the players simply haven't thrown themselves into the league games like they did the WCC match.

Too simplistic.



Again too simplistic to just say other teams have had injuries. It all depends on which players are injured at the same time and in addition to our injuries we had already lost three stalwarts from our Triple winning side. Two of these were our on the field leaders and one our game manager, organisor and leading kicker. Did the other clubs you mention also have this serious handicap to overcome too?

The club made signings to try and replace JP but did not for key man Sinfield and placed their faith in the unproven Sutcliffe to take on this role. Something which I seem to recall you agreed with at the time.

So when new captain McGuire got injured in the first match we were left with no option but to trust in Sutcliffe, Burrow, Lilley to responsible for our key pivot positions (as Falloon was one of the injured) Sadly these three have proven to be inadequate and their job was made even more difficult by the poor form of senior players like Hardaker, Watkins and Hall etc. Also since Falloon eventually was fit enough to play he has been a big disappointment so far.




We have lost one game by 2 points and another four games by 4 points. In each of these we have missed kickable goals which in all but the last game could have changed the result.

Our form in all aspects of the game has been terrible but although our defense has been woeful at times it is our attack that IMO has been the main reason for our position in the table and this comes back to the lack of adequate halfbacks and decision makers.



But you do not know if Mac had requested a replacement for Sinfield do you? To keep repeating that you apparently believe Sinny and JP did "plenty of coaching" does not make it true either. As I said before you too were happy for us not to sign a half back and you felt Sutcliffe deserved the position.



I am sure there are as many examples of new managers being worse than the previous ones eg in football things have not gone too well for Man U Fergie left have they?

Correct.




The lack of a second team/development is another of the reasons for the decline in our sport. Players need to play every week when fit and so those that have not make the 17 plus players returning from injury should play in the 2nds along with a mix of younsters who would then have time to adjust to the senior game without the same pressures. To achieve this will need extra funding which is another reason to increase the Cap.

Too simplistic to show a clear factual example of where a change of Coach worked at a club with plenty of injuries at the time of change??
In terms of me backing Suttcliffe i still do 100% but he was never going to be the leader that Sinfield was neither was Mcguire something i clearly also said at the time.
Not replacing "Sinfield/JP" is clearly meant in terms of on field Leadership and as we are witnessing off field influence not nescersarily positionally.
Also re-Sinfield/JP the Coach himself has reiterated on numerous occasions over previous seasons the amount of input they had on/off the pitch so not just what i believe a fact backed up by the Coaches comments.
Did he ask for replacements? He was pretty vocal in backing who we'd signed & how we had enough in the group already id say that indicates not.
Ive already said GH takes a portion of the blame but also the teams we've had available could & should have performed better you accuse me of being simplistic with certain opinions but for you its straight forward to blame HB's??
Hmmm anyone watching us knows clearly its not just down to HB's the whole shape with & without the ball has been pish more often than not even with Mcguire & Burrow running the show.
I'll also add even with plenty of players available we hardly ever look like winning & we certainly look short of any sort of game-plan.
Cas are riddled with injuries which include a HB & their go to FB yet they are often more competitive than not & have a clear plan & shape no matter how basic we have neither.

Unbelievable cobblers about Sutcliffe on here. His collapse in form is entirely understandable - have a look at how bad Hastings and Nikorima were going for the Roosters until recently.

Young halfbacks thrown in at the deep end will almost inevitable be the first to lose confidence when the team is playing badly because they have so much more responsibility than anyone else. Its no coincidence that Hastings is now looking much better having moved an experienced forward to play alongside him. A couple of weeks ago he looked like he'd never played the game - passes all over the place, wrong options almost every time and his kicking game (previously a huge strength) was dreadful.

From what I saw last year Sutcliffe has the makings of a very good SL stand off. What he needs though is a partnership with a more experienced player that lasts more than a few games and to play in a team where so-called senior players aren't taking the mickey.

In terms of junior development I'd say its been poor for a while now. A team like Leeds with its resources ought to be aiming to have two or more juniors at about the stage Handley and Golding were last year every year - and accept some will move on as there is no first team spot for them. We haven't had a decent forward come through the Academy since Ward 5 years ago.

Sutcliffe was never IN form. Whenever he played, Sinfield was on the bench to rescue the situation. Sutty at one good game vs Wakefield when he played full back.

Apart from those games/wins Sinfield missed vs Wigan, Catalans and Cas.

Off the bench 4 times, we were already well ahead of Saints when he came on. He didn't rescue us vs Warrington at home (but Sinfield was poor when he started vs Wire in Round 5). We beat Hull at home when Burrow was in the halves and Sutcliffe was filling in for Hardaker at FB. And Cas at home we lost which I put down to GH refusing to move the Sunday game vs Wakefield forward even though we were then playing on Thursday and unsurprisingly looked like we could've done with an extra day or two.

I guess you missed the games Printer listed then?
Prior to injury he was OUR FORM HB simple as.

Agree with both those points. It would have been difficult enough for Sutcliffe if he wasn't coming back from a serious injury and the pack was actually playing well. McGuire really struggled when he came back after his knee reconstruct in 2011. Wasn't until near end of season he got back to his best.

I must have missed Sinfield coming off the bench to rescue the situation at Saints, when Sutcliffe created two tries in a dominant first half performance.

Sutcliffe is one of the comparitively few recent Academy graduates (of those allowed to make 1st grade) who should be persevered with. He needs a game managing, experienced half alongside him to take some of the responsibility away if he's going to develop into a quality running stand-off.

The cross field kick for Handley's third try was fantastic, Sutcliffe tormented the Saints left edge the entire game and should have been the man of the match.

Because the sun might shine today does not mean it will shine tomorrow. It shows a random example that does not take into consideration other important factors. In all Wakefield's wins since their change of coach their main two halfbacks (with Finn a successful kicker too) have been major factors as indeed they were when they beat us by 4 points.



Yet you still were happy to have both Sutcliffe and McGuire play together in the halfbacks! I cannot follow your logic Rhinoms. Sutcliffe would need to be along side Cooper Cronk to be effective as a 6. IMO he quite obviously should not play in a pivotal position (apart from perhaps fullback) as he is not a decision maker or a game changer. This does not mean he should not figure in the squad. I have said many times his skill set is better suited to centre and he has been useful as a bench utility player too.


Ok then for which position would you have recruited a leader and goal kicker.




What is you definition of numerous? and did you ever consider that by giving credit Mac is showing motivational management skills? It is quite usual in professional sport for the coach to allow the captain, senior players and assistant coaches to run parts of training sessions to give imput and practice among other things decision making and on field leadership. This in no way means Mac's role in our success is diminished as you have tried to insinuate.




Come on now Rhinoms he is hardly likely to say to the media that he is disappointed with the signings is he? He has to tow the company line and has to try and motivate the players is has got.




Who is responsible for the recruitment at Rhinos and the purse strings? Now I do not know the conversations between BM and GH regarding recruitment matters and neither does anyone else. So to keep asking for the coach to be sacked without this knowledge is unfair. Other clubs have recruited some quality at halfbacks in the same timescale and if necessary we should have been prepared to use the marquee budget if necessary to try and replace Sinfield's role in the side.

Now I do agree that despite the very serious and ongoing injury list (which I think is worse than most other clubs) we still should have collected more wins and put on better performances. But this has been down to the other major factors which is the loss of form of so many players and in particular the senior ones. Again form comes and goes with experience players and novices alike and then eventually magically returns too.

So I have not said it is simply a lack of quality at halfback but an accumulation of several factors which include: disruption in pre season training, long term injuries to key players, additional serious injuries in training and from the first two games onwards including our new captain and creative half back that meant we could not field a settled side. On top of this we had poor form from senior players and a failure to replace our main game manager at half back. These in themselves should not have been game breakers but when added together have become a recipe for disaster. I believe most if not all coaches would have struggled in the same way that BM has struggle with these particular problems.

Why I keep highlighting our failure to recruit a quality half back as a major problem is because this has now unbalanced our squad. Although McGuire has improves his all round game he still is essentially a runner whose first instinct is to make a break. Burrow and Sutcliffe are both runners too. So all these type of players need a creative passer as do the rest of the team. Lilley shows signs of being creative but it is asking a lot to come in and run the side. This major weakness has been cruelly exposed after we lost McGuire in the first game. This weakness has been proven with the complete failure of our attack which should have won us at least four of the close games we have lost and had that happened we would be sitting in 5th place now without all the panicking.



To be fair to McGuire it seems he still isn't fit yet but without a creative player our shape will never look right. Confidence is low but there were some better signs I felt against Salford. When Burrow went to acting half back we did at least cross the line three times and on another day would have scored three and won the game. Form has to return soon and with the all elusive confidence and momentum and then you get some run of the ball too. For a new coach to come in just when things are due to change seems unfair.




Or the ability to play to a game plan. I am sure dropping the ball over the line or dropping a high bomb was not in the game plan.



Their main goal kicking play-maker half back has played most if not all their games this season so not a fair comparison. Had we had McGuire all season I think we would have won at least enough to be ahead of them.

Only because Sinfield was out of form for a number of games. Had he not been Sutcliffe would have been on the bench.

How he got in the team is irrellevant if as he did he was clearly worthy of that spot once in & he showed clearly he has enough to be a 6.
Also he only list that place due to serious injury not loss of form.

He definatley plays his best when he can focus on opening up defences instead of trying to move a team around. I never saw him play much in the academy but it seems to me that he is not a natural organisor and needs a halfback partner to help him out in that regaurd. That is why it is a little baffling to me that he hasnt played a full game next to Mcguire yet this season.
He has shown he has the ability to throw good passes and put in good kicks but only when the 7 and 9 is moving the team around effectively.

We must remember that Mcguire only really developed as an organisor when he was about 30.
Also I dont think Milford can organise much but he is still probably the best 6 in the world atm.

My logic as you put it is straight forward we failed to recruit at least 1on field Leader that could come from a number of positions it doesn't have to be a HB.
Look at ST's for e.g lead by Roby & Wilkin.
Re-Cas Their go to FB who plays as an extra HB has been missing as has Roberts Millington Shenton Moors Holmes plenty of their "big hitters" so a more than fair comparison.
Wakey also missing a lot of their bigger players but look organised.
You also seem happy to use Mags injury as an excuse yet dont afford Suttcliffe that same courtesy he's had a serious knee injury had no pre-season & is thrown into a pivotal role amongst an iut of form rudderless shambles.
The Coach/staff are a major part of that & as with the team have failed to come up with any sort of basic gameplan or shape.
Also GH doesn't just say we're signing A,B or C either EVERY Coach has had an input in that process.

People say fullbacks are an extra half but in reality they have much less influence in attack and dont have to be nearly as creative.
Tomkins is a prime example of a young half who had a brilliant running game and a pretty good ability to read a defence. But at the age of 21 (sutcliffe's age btw) they decided to move him to fullback where he would have more space and less thinking to do instead of developing his ability to read defences and his kicking game.

In australia they do the opposite, players who are young come in with similar attributes to tomkins who play at fullback for a few years to adapt to the NRL but are then moved to 6 to give them MORE responsibility and develop the other aspects of being a half, such as Milford and Widdop.
And we still unsuprisingly cant beat the Aussies or NZ when they have their first choice halves.
They back their talented fullbacks and give them more responsibilty and we take responsibility off our talented halves.

Your organiser type of halfback is a rare beast as it is but even rarer now because teams are making calls on players at the age of 19 so many potential players are being lost before they've had a chance to finish their development.

There's been some discussion about this on the Bulls forum. There hasn't been a single decent British organising halfback to come through at that age since Bobbie Goulding. Almost all the British organising halfbacks of the past 10-15 years didn't become regulars until their early 20s. Deacon was 23, Long was 24.

I've a theory that it could be down to size. Those smaller lads aren't ready physically at 19 so get fewer chances unless they're some kind of prodigy. Even then they get moved e.g. to fullback so they're less of a defensive liability (Tomkins) or moved to be an impact player/dummy half (Burrow).

Juan, did Hardaker diddle your wife & is BMD your favourite uncle?

The trouble with too much favouritism &/or dislike is that it clouds judgements & encourages people to disregard your opinion on the grounds that it is the same old one-sided fare.

Hardaker is an infantile playboy (he wishes) who has an excellent running game, outstanding one-on-one defense & good handling of the high ball. These were the attributes which brought him the MOS award in 2015. His linking in the offensive line & passing are his weaknesses & he will have to improve on these aspects to become a truly great FB. He, like 95% of his colleagues, are suffering from poor form at the moment.

McDermott has shown that he can take a group of proven winners & keep them motivated enough to continue their winning ways. He has also introduced a sprinkling of talent (mostly from overseas or the academy) over his tenure with great success. The problem was always going to be when the proven winners & leaders started to disappear. He HAS had terrible luck with injuries the season so far, but there is nothing in the demeanour of the players to suggest that they know what to do about their current plight. Has BMD identified the CORRECT players to take on the leadership role? Has he identified the CORRECT game plans to see us through this tough time? Has he got the necessary leadership skills himself to impart wisdom/knowledge/inspiration to his troops?
Only GH & the players would be able to answer these questions, but the longer this spell goes on the more people (myself included) come to the conclusion that the answers may be NO.

It is no good just crying about our terrible injury list, or saying "Does BMD tell his players to drop the ball/give away penalties etc?". He is a supposed to be the leader & inspiration & I don't see that inherent in our play.

Many people said that once KS & JP left, that would be the acid test for BMD (or any coach for that matter). He hasn't started very well.

Have you seen Hardaker under the high ball lately - he spends more time shouting at Handley to catch it than actually attempting to catch it himself.

He puts others in a tough position because their approach to the catch is not ideal because Hardaker is in the ideal place and should grow some and catch the thing.