While I understand it's not a given for McDermott to neccessarily use all seventeen players on matchday I've yet to notice any time his team has started the game with twelve.

Like the Fa'afilli case it's another short-term setback rather than the game-changer you would like to imply. It's the type of thing all clubs have to deal with from time to time, it's not unique to London/Harlequins or London/Harlequins during McDermott's tenure. It could only become an issue if you don't follow the 'no excuses' mantra.

Let's be clear, when Henry Paul left the Harlequins he was 34 years of age and never re-surfaced in SL after opting for an easier life in Union. He had played three seasons at the Stoop, two of those under McDermott. Harlequins league position was already faltering while he was still there. IIRC Luke Dorn was brought back to the club from Castleford to partner Danny Orr in the halves with Rob Purdham moving from second row to loose to cover Paul's half-back/loose forward role at the Quins - so I'm not sure the 'never replaced' comment of yours holds much water under scrutiny either.




Who is suggesting any club, let alone one I support, could ride such a wave of good fortune.

There was an element of luck in avoiding one of the teams Leeds had failed to beat in 2011 on the way to being crowned Champions. Nothing Leeds could do about that and they had to beat the league leaders on their own patch so they had fulfilled their part of the bargain but the current play-off format is flawed IMO when a top two team loses home advantage for the eventual QSF to a team who finished below them at the end of the 27 Regular Rounds after being given a week's rest. That is a big penalty to suffer while playing a highly competitive team while others get an easier ride against some comparitive dross.

Equally there had been an element of luck in reaching the Challenge Cup Final without having to play any of the teams sitting above Leeds' unusually lowly position on the league ladder - a run of good fortune that has continued in 2012 - only it has proved impossible to avoid a 'decent' side at the semi-final stage this time. I don't begrudge Leeds or McDermott that run but acknowledge it was fortunate ...... which it was. I try not to confuse being lucky with draws and hard won coaching ability.



The use of 'doomsday' was not intended to pertain to Leeds' immediate or even long-term future. The point was that extending player contracts virtually 'ad infinitum' (for those such as Ablett who are already secured over the medium term anyway) will achieve very little to alter the direction of travel in 2013. If the trend is currently downward then it will likely require more than the retention of the contracted group to turn that situation around. Either pressure from within through the Academy ranks or an injection from outside. The present coach appears a little reluctant to try the former at present and his CEO shows little desire to try the latter.

Around this point last season someone who has just recently joined the thread stated that Leeds had 'the weakest set of forwards of any of the top sides.' If he was right then, was he still right after the Grand Final? If he was right twelve months ago what has changed since then?



So? Does that mean the rest of the season doesn't matter. Rather than ask the player's when their season ends wouldn't it also be a good idea to ask them when their season starts? It might help those naive supporters to understand the nature of what is served up to them on a regular basis before they (the so called professional players) are prepared to click into gear for our entertainment.

I'm an advocate of the Play-Offs deciding the ultimate Champions but there is an inherent danger that if you get the format wrong you can undermine the credibility or point of much of the Regular Rounds.

The best format we've had, IMO, was the original top 5, in use between 1998 and 2001. Only the genuine contenders those seasons earned a chance, every higher play-off place had a reward over the one below and your next game (perhaps bar the QPO that afforded a second chance to the loser) was your most crucial of the season, flowing to the ultimate Grand Final decider.

No rewarding mediocrity throughout the regular rounds and a reasonable guarantee those clubs who'd earnt the right to contest the final would ultimately do so.



It's =#0000BFarguable that the outcome of the Grand Final turned on an injury to a St Helens player. While he was on the field 16 - 8 to St Helens including a try, after he left the field 24 - 0 to Leeds with 18 of those points coming down his defensive channel. Only the last second Hardaker intercept bucked that trend. That McDermott is one fortunate coach.



Could/would/should have but crucially for the record keepers didn't despite what was a pleasantly surprising competitive performance on the day, especially considering the relative humiliation the week before at the Stoop against a team without a win in their last seven rounds and only one win in their previous fourteen. Another example of this set of 'Champion players' only playing when they feel like it perhaps?



I don't think you get the chance to do these swaps in real life do you? I'm pleased Leeds did the league double, especially after the Cassidy 'tackle' on Morley at Central Park and while disappointed at Old Trafford I felt Wigan were the better team over the whole season (Leeds were massive improvers under an absolute quality coach but not quite there) so deserved it. Perhaps that defeat led to the following season Challenge Cup triumph including taking out the then big three (Wigan, St Helens, Bradford) on the road to Wembley '99. Not much luck in that draw although it's always nice to be at home rather than having to travel.

You'll note the comparison didn't exclude any Leeds SL Era coach. The figures are accurate and reflect the percentage of points won and the average score does what it says on the tin. Yes there will be a variation in the number of opportunities each coach has had of recording wins (not forgetting losses also)but McDermott's Leeds have faced Wigan five times now so not sure how many more defeats are required to firm the record up and make it comparable to your satisfaction. With a record so far that reads : Draw, Loss, Loss, Loss, Capitulation, I'm in danger of doing McDermott a favour. On the quite alarming evidence of the last meeting against a weakened opponent while almost at full-strength and at home - that 10% could well prove to be McDermott's high water mark..... sadly.



Could also be that the players are simply comfortable in their surroundings. Perhaps too comfortable with no pressure on performance at the core of the squad with only the fringe players places under any type of threat.

The performances have been generally pretty poor since McDermott took charge. All his fault - of course not - but he's the one that will ultimately have to carry the can just as Simmons did earlier this season at St Helens. It's how sport operates and as much as the CEO (for now) tries to apportion blame in the direction of the players he's only got limited room for manoeuvre in the prevailing market conditions.

Absolutely!



Wish it was Ray Batten!

Indeed... [iwhen[/i [idoes[/i it become one embarrassing performance too many for action to be taken?

is the answer 42?

Tvoc - As you already know, I don’t follow the ‘no excuses’ mantra. What Harlequins lost with Paul and Fa’afili was all-round experience, not just a player of a certain position. Squads such as ours are lucky to have great depth and versatility so that if we do hit an injury, we have other senior players who can offer that experience, and young players who can fill in the position on the field. I would suggest that due to lack of financial investment again, this was not a luxury Harlequins had. I would hope that you understand that a players value is not just in how he performs, but in how he encourages others to behave and in what he can bring off the field. Why do you think Newcastle wanted Buderus back? He offers the FULL package.

For someone who apparently doesn’t suggest that any club could ride such a wave of good fortune alone, in this post alone you have talked about an element of luck in avoiding Wigan in the play-offs, and an element of luck in reaching the Challenge Cup final without playing anyone who was positioned above us in the table. You also say that it’s arguable that an injury (I assume you mean to Michael Shenton, who I will discuss below) turned the Grand Final. Perhaps you should consider whether or not you really believe that you don’t suggest that.

Interestingly, where you quote me (“unless you would suggest that this was all just luck”), I am talking about the Club’s desire for success, a point which you are now ignoring. You talk about Wigan’s “big penalty” of losing home advantage – well, for someone who has mentioned on multiple times now the “no excuses” mantra, I would say that’s an excuse (and have to ask you how that’s a bigger penalty than lack of financial investment, as an excuse). Playing at the Stobart earlier in the year didn’t seem to stop Wigan winning 32-10 either. In terms of luck in the Challenge Cup, I would say it’s unlucky to play ONLY Superleague teams on the run up to the Final.

Again, you have not accepted my point that the Club has shown it’s desire for success, or even mentioned this point. I have made my beliefs on Academy players well know in this thread, and have to ask you about your opinion regarding injections from outside – our CEO signed two players in the off-season (three if you include Briscoe), and we’ve taken Shaun Lunt mid-year. I’m not sure why I would expect GH to come out publicly now and tell me he’s thinking of signing someone in the off-season. Where you quote someone else as saying we had the weakest set of forwards in the League this time last year, do you or did you agree? If you do, a comment like that needs some justification please. In terms of change, we’ve added Richard Moore and Darrell Griffin to the mix – Moore (as you know I believe) has been immense, and Griffin I’m sure will get there after his belting tackle on Harrison last week.

Of course the entire season matters, but I think you understand the point I am making. I agree that a top 8 is too many, but in finishing 5th we only played one team who finished lower than us (quite rightly), and if our mediocrity was rewarded, it’s because we worked our backsides off to beat Huddersfield, Warrington and St Helens. I would say that Warrington and Wigan both had “reasonable guarantees” with the last system that they had earnt the right to contest the Final – Warrington even got to choose their final opponent!

Now to the injury of a St Helens player. I assume you are referring to Michael Shenton, a centre. I find this very interesting for someone who was previously so scathing of wingers/ centres as they aren’t part of the spine. I also find this interesting on the basis that he has been so valuable to St Helens, that they are off-loading him to Castleford part way through his contract. While an injury, of course, has an effect on the game, the measure of a good squad and particularly 17 (chosen by the “fortunate” McDermott) is in depth, which they obviously didn’t have enough of. How fortunate he was indeed to have picked a good 17 and train them to go for any weak spots!! Perhaps the loss of Shenton was more a fortunate excuse for St Helens.

It was disappointing to lose to London the week before the Final, but it’s not uncommon for players to play badly when they have one eye on a Final the following week.

You are wrong to say that the percentage of points won and average score does what it says on the tin. Frankly, you have manipulated these figures by portraying them in a way which suits you and not giving any background. Here, I give the League standings for ourselves and Wigan for people to see this for themselves:

1996 – Leeds 10th – Wigan 2nd
1997 – Leeds 5th – Wigan 4th
1998 – Leeds 2nd – Wigan 1st
1999 – Leeds 3rd – Wigan 4th
2000 – Leeds 4th – Wigan 1st
2001 – Leeds 5th – Wigan 2nd
2002 – Leeds 4th – Wigan 3rd
2003 – Leeds 2nd – Wigan 3rd
2004 – Leeds 1st – Wigan 4th
2005 – Leeds 2nd – Wigan 7th
2006 – Leeds 3rd – Wigan 7th
2007 – Leeds 2nd – Wigan 4th
2008 – Leeds 2nd – Wigan 4th
2009 – Leeds 1st – Wigan 6th
2010 – Leeds 4th – Wigan 1st
2011 – Leeds 5th – Wigan 2nd

We know how we’ve performed over this time, so we don’t need to spend too long looking at that. What Wigan’s finishes tell me though, is that in the years Wigan have finished 7th and 6th, we SHOULD have been beating them every time we played them. But when they’re finishing 1st and 2nd? They have built a formidable team in the last 2 and a half years, and with the exception of the game two weeks ago, we have been very competitive when we’ve played them, which is what we should be hoping for. I also have to ask how seriously weakened you thought Wigan were the other week – they fielded Tomkins, Charnley, Goulding, Carmont, Gelling, Finch, Leuluai, Dudson, McIlorum, Lima, Farrell, Hughes, O’Loughlin, and Lauaki, with three youngsters on the bench. That’s their starting spine, and an “awesome foursome”.

You say the performances have generally been pretty poor since McDermott took charge. I’m going to repeat myself yet again when I say that we’ve had all-round good performances against Cas away (April 11), Catalans at home (May 11), Hull KR at home (June 11), Cas at home (August 11), Wakey at home (September 11), Hull at home (play-offs, September 11), Huddersfield away (p-o, September 11), Warrington away (p-o, September 11), Grand Final, World Club Challenge (Feb 12), Warrington at home (Mar 12), Salford away (Mar 12), London at home (Apr 12), and Catalans at home (Apr 12), and we’re only just over half way through this season. You might look at some of these opponents and think they maybe weren’t the best but I’m looking solely at the way we played – with composure. The seasons where you get almost a whole year of solid performances come few and far between for anyone, we had one in 2004 and that’s what Wigan seem to be doing now. Warrington had one last year, but I would be willing to bet they’d swap it for ours.

Frankly, the day we start operating like St Helens is the day things really start to go wrong – sure they sacked Royce Simmons but if we win on Monday we will only be 2 points behind them in 4th. Do you really think that sacking Royce will automatically make that team successful?

Correct....but didn't you, sorry 'Brian', foolishly select a team with no props at the stoop ?? Or is that not the coach's fault either ?

Something to be discussed in more depth at the restaurant at the end of the universe. I was always more hopeful it being 69.

*sigh* Have you heard the term flogging a dead horse...

That wasn't even funny on page 1.

Enlighten me.....

You don't need to read my select drivel you know, never mind respond. You're only giving me the attention I so desperately crave.

Nantwichexile, I've double-checked the line-up for this game and I can see that we played with Leuluai and Kirke, though admittedly we didn't have any on the bench. From memory JP, Bailey and JJB (who can play at prop if need be) were injured. Not sure what you expect the coach to do about that, especially the week before a Final.

Kirke

....Motivate them perhaps ?

Just why are you [iso[/i defensive of McDermott ? Do you actually believe he is a good coach ? Best in RL ? Best in SL ? Would other clubs be clamouring for his signature ?

I agree with you, Kirke is not our best prop, but you can't slate Mac for playing him when we have injuries. Your comment re motivation is an interesting one - a coach can only do so much to motivate players (he certainly did a good job in the games after the Final), and again, I think the players struggled to get motivated for a game against London the week before the Final against Wigan.

I've outlined in my original post why I'm defensive of him, so I would refer you to that for a reason, and whether or not I actually believe he is a good coach (yes). And yes, I definitely think other Clubs would be wanting his signature, he's been well praised by many for what he did last year, so I have to ask why some of the fans don't rate him at all when people within rugby league, inside and outside our club, have praised him. When I've gone to all the effort I have in this thread to explain my views, perhaps you could explain yours a bit better.

Is that because he's a back-rower?

Your assessment is all too simplistic. These days in SL it is becoming all too easy for a side to run away with it in the first 20 or 30 minutes. A few errors, a few bad calls from officials lead to handing over crucial possession and therefore the all important momentum to a side in form.

Scores do not always truly reflect the full 80 minutes and with the odd exception Leeds have not been “thrashed” on a regular basis.

The “poor technique” and “bad discipline” have been evident for long before BMcD was appointed and these same players with all their faults have a very impressive and remarkable record which includes another GF victory last year and this season a WCC victory under this coach.

Anyone who has coached will realise the difficulty of trying to change deep routed habits and personality disorders in established players let alone international stars.

You also state that a “lack of (visible) coaching” is to blame for these many “thrashings” Quite what you mean by this I do not know. And would you like to provide evidence you have to substantiate your accusations?

I do not seek to paper over any cracks but neither do I put the blame on our coach for poor form from senior players. The disgraceful abuse of a man who has proven his abilities and is doing his best is really the pits

Sorry my spelling of batten upset you but I guess I must have thought a piece of timber is appropriate when trying to understand ‘woodentops’

"Simplistic" ? Why bother trying to analyse performances in such great depth ? As others have stated, RL is a simple game......at times we [ihave[/i been crap. Simple.

"Not thrashed on a regular basis" ? Depends how one defines 'regular' I guess. It [uhas[/u been too 'regular' for me personally this season. For a team perceived to be within the top echelons of SL I would suggest that this season the 'thrashings' have been [ivery[/i 'regular' ....how many times have Wigan/Warrington/Saints conversely been 'thrashed' by Leeds this season or indeed these last couple of seasons ?

..."difficulty of trying to change deep routed habits" ? So are you conceding McDermott is not up to the job ? I would have thought the easiest way to achieve this would be to show strength and drop anybody not listening to instructions ? Forgive my naievity. but isn't that why you have a squad of approx 30 first teamers ? No point is there (surely?) if the first 17-20 are going to be selected despite these "deep routed habits" ?? Seems pretty weak to me.

You can be excused for your faux pas if you were able to conjure up some batonburg cake to share....good luck on that one

Nantwichexile - I don't agree that rugby league is a simple game. Football, I would say, is a simple game - there is relative transparency in each pass of the ball and each play, but in rugby league, analysis of the performance allows us to understand better where we went wrong and/or where we played well. I frequently go to the game and watch it back on my Sky+ later, and often see things that during game time you can't see due to distance from the field or focus being elsewhere.

No-one enjoys a thrashing, but I wouldn't be getting too despondent about the two we've had this year; they were nowhere near what we've shown we are capable of, both at the end of this season and with a few good performances earlier this season, it was almost like we just didn't turn up. What you need to remember is that EVERYONE, every single team wants to turn us over so of course they raise their game against us, so when WE win, I don't expect a thrashing, I just expect a good performance. Where we have thrashed teams in the last 18 months it was the smaller clubs and I don't think anyone took confidence from the score alone, but the performance itself.

In terms of McDermott "showing strength", who would you suggest he drops and why? How many players do you think he should drop all in one go? If he did this, would you be happy, or would you be upset if the young replacements got thrashed? The squad of approximately 30 first teamers, as I hope you are aware, really only contains 21/22 at most who are of week-in, week-out standard, plus a couple of academy players who you might hope to give a game or two to. I've said this in earlier posts but I can't see how dropping any of the senior players is going to help anything; what they need now is a decent performance and the confidence they can take from that.

Players don't need to be dropped completely....you could for example drop the over-used knackered Sinfield and Peacock to the bench whilst starting Ward and Singleton. Webb needs dropping because of his petulance, allowing high bombs to bounce.... and to see what we might start with next year. Hardaker is not succeeding at LC: it seems prudent to allow him time at FB with perhaps Keinhorst given a run at LC (or Chisholm on the left wing with Hall moved inside). We know Ablett can cover if all else fails. Kirke needs dropping in favour of Daniel Smith perhaps. We need to stop pretending Lee Smith can regain his pre-RU form......at least in the outside backs. At best use him at FB or in the middle and develop any remaining talent there.

I agree that Sinfield and Peacock could do with a rest, and while I would perhaps start Ward (on occassion), I would only bring Singleton off the bench - we have other props who would deserve to start (Richard Moore for me). I don't agree that Webb needs dropping, he might not have played well in his brief stint last week but as I say earlier in this thread, he's made a number of tries this year with some brilliant passes and creation of opportunity so at the very least, the good weighs the same as the bad. Hardaker is not playing to his best at the moment but I thought he was outstanding filling in at fullback last week, I certainly wouldn't put Lee Smith there over him. Keinhorst will hopefully get a couple of games before the end of the season but again, I wouldn't just drop him in the deep end and play him every week (I outline why in previous posts). The same would go for Dan Smith, but again, we've got some really good competition at prop (JP, Leuluai, Bailey, Moore, Griffin and Singleton without including Kirke) so there's no need to be playing him every week.

This being said... you haven't said how Mac would be showing strength by doing any of this?

Richard Moore maybe...but I would always prioritise the kids with a longer future if feasible. I agree about Webb's try creating abilities, but the fact is he is leaving at the end of the season: IMO we should be looking at the options now. Who said anything about playing the likes of Keinhorst or Dan Smith every week at this stage ??

McDermott would show 'strength' by demonstrating he is in charge: at the moment the senior players appear to be.

To be honest this debate is fine and dandy, but at the end of the day (don't you just detest cliches ?

) it's hardly worth spending hours of time on it. It's not as though [uwe[/u can actually do anything about it....UNLESS you [uare[/u Brian of course

I can't agree with prioritising the younger kids - if a player has worked his backside off to play well, he should be rewarded for that whatever his age. The kids are the future of the Club but we also have a responsibility to give them time to get used to Superleague, and it's better if (certainly on debut) they can come off the bench on say 25-30 minutes at the earliest when *hopefully* the opposition is a little more tired. I agree it's worth seeing what our options are for next season, especially if the injury Webb picked up last week is going to keep him out. When I talked about playing young lads every week, I assumed when you suggested dropping players that you meant for a longer period of time than just one game.

I don't think it seems like the senior players are in charge at the moment - I think Mac's shown great strength in shaking things up a bit and playing Burrow at hooker, as one example. Obviously we've played the big 3 twice this year already (Saints, Wigan and Warrington) and those are the games that you just can't afford to drop any senior players for; one because it would be a big ask for any youngster making a debut, and two because at any time our senior players could click and change the game. We need to keep faith with these guys for the rest of the year for that very reason, though we've got a few fixtures coming up (Wakey on Monday, London in a couple of weeks, and Wakey again at the end of July) where we could rest a couple and play a few young lads. Giving a good performance against any team will lift the players and should give them the confidence they'll need in the run up to the end of the season and through the play-offs.

Totally respect what you say about this debate, but the debate is ultimately about Mac as a coach, and I've been happy to spend the time this week defending him; I can't tell you how frustrated I've been with some of the non-reasoned and highly personal abuse I've heard (though I've tried throughout this thread)! I can also tell you it would take some highly taxing physical and mental changes for me to be Brian McDermott!!

How long do you accept below standard -performances from "senior players" before they become droppable??
How long as an elite coach should it take to change clear weakness' within our defensive structure?
How long before it's deemed reasonable to question a coaches selections ,tactics or lack of and blind faith in things that clearly aren't working?
How far do you have to run ageing Props into the ground before rotating them?
Good performances against Wakey ,Cas and London will only be looking to cover the ever widening cracks within our set up this year and won't do anything to address the previous lack of even looking like a challenging team against the likes of ST's and the Pies!!
Whatever defence you and JC put up for the coach ,team ,tackle bags and hot dog vender the questions and criticisims are very VALID and carry weight with more evidence to back those!!
Now there are some tough calls needed and burying yer head in the sand ,throwing cliche's about and hoping we come good isn't gonna work.

This.

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark and a handful of top draw performances at the business end of the season simply masks the facts that we have an ageing and tired looking pack, a full back that is either sublime or woeful and a management team who seem to insist on playing players out of their natural positions .

I could not (and indeed did not) put it any better myself.



Being the incontrovertible dedicated supporter you are I do hope the powers that be will listen to to the likes of these concerns rather than complacently placate themselves with the ever patient acolytes who would slavishly follow the team unquestioningly ...whatever the warning signs.

rhinowinorlose?

I suppose I am, and in probabability will belucky to live long enough to continue being a ticket holder as long as i already have been. And yes the value given has decreased but it's certainly less hassle having one and would agree with g1 that the match itself is only a part of being a regular attender. I'm probably less of a fan'atic' either being older or realising that you can be poor in parts and win the title.

The golden period though was 2004 up to the finals of 2005 as we had a period of consistency and exciting play.

After the final losses came a justification of pacing a season though i think there's a big differencebetween losing a game due to rotation and woefully underperforming