I'm just going to throw one thing only in here regarding the Senior challenge cup situaiton, and the pointing out that the GF was a bigger game that season.

When Senior got the injury and a doubt for the cup final, it was widely said throughout the game, and by people close to Senior, that he would play the Challenge cup final with pain killing injections. However, he would not play again for the season after that if they took that route, due to the further damage it would cause.

The club under Smith, took that risk to play Senior because they wanted the CC win to follow on from the previous championship win and WCC win.

That risk failed (it was always a gamble), and not only did it fail there it also runined the chances of winning the second on the trot GF. So in that case you could argue that the club saw the CC as the bigger game that season.

What exactly are you disagreeing with?

If Bai didn't have that brain fart, if Calderwood collected the grubber, if Sinfield & Ward made the easy tackle on Cooke, If Sinfield scored the drop goal.


Would the Senior thing ever of been mentioned?, I'm sure that in SL injured players play every week.

And had McKenna not got injured too.

That said, playing Senior was a big risk that didn't pay off and one where I felt John Kear played an excellent mind game in the week before on the subject.

The bigger error though was going into the game with only 2 recognised props against a big Hull pack.

I've said i want Mclennan to achieve great success with Leeds.

He thinks I don't want that.

I don't know much about psychology but I think he's projecting his own warped values onto me. He hated Smith. Illogically, he didn't want Smith as an individual to succeed even if, by extension, that meant Leeds succeeded. David is an avid supporter of certain individuals with Leeds organisation and a avid hater of others. Its' really weird.

Because I have raised issues on here with Mclennans tactics and because I questioned, very early, the hypocritical leeway posters on here gave Mclennan as opposed to Smith David assumes I hate him in the same way he hates(d) Smith. So he assumes I don't want Leeds and McLennan to be successful. Despite me saying that I do, repeatedly and in the clearest possible way.

We made some howlers in a game that we lost by 1 point, had Barrie played and played anything like he did in the last game against Bradford then he would of been a massive hinderence, more so than Senior going off.

We lost and everybody wants to make an excuse, sometimes it happens
had Senior won the Lance Todd it would of been hailed as a master stroke by Smith

Ala Kris Radlinski at Murryfield 2002?

I think we're in general agreement but Barrie appeared to have been scapegoated - he wasn't the only (or worst) offender from the previous week and going into that game with 2 props was like a 10 point start. Not that surprising that after over 70 minutes game time Danny Ward got stepped by Cooke for the final score.

But he would still have been out for rest of the season, including GF. So not such a master stroke.

You'd have hoped Leeds would have learned from their own 2003 Challenge Cup experience that taking clearly injured players into a final is a high risk strategy.

Smith's game-plan worked for 77 minutes, I don't see what the problem was, I've seen many Leeds coaches put a team out and the game plan not work for 80 minutes, let alone not work for 3!

The tedry of some Leeds fans astounds me!

Barrie was dire against BRadofrd the week before, but at least the guy kept putting his hand up and wanting to take the ball up. It just didn't happen for him.

However, even if Smith should have dropped Barrie, he should have gone with scruton instead, rather than whoever was the replacement.

You think so?

I doubt the game plan was to score late on in order to be narrowly ahead and hanging on with 2 knackered props against a side you were widely expected to beat easilly.

Its all ifs, buts and maybes and so many imponderables in that particular match but my expectancy on the morning of the game was that we'd win fairly easilly.

Depends how much you want the CC

Smith dropped Barrie for a big game that we lost narrowly and is still roundly criticised for it.

Yet a previous, much more popular but less successful Leeds coach, dropped Barrie for a Grand final which we lost by a higher margin. Rarely mentioned on here and didn't affect the said coaches popularity.

Shows the fickle nature of our fan base.

Only last week on here people were saying our success over the last 5 or 6 years has been tarnished by our failure to win a CC.

Help me out on this.

Did the previous coach select another prop in preference to Barrie (as he had for a number of games that year) or did he simply drop him and go into the game with 2 props?

Agreed

We hadn't lost to Hull for 3 seasons or so, and we'd beaten the same team comfortably less than 2 months previously, and prior to the bulls agme had won something like 11 straight games, scoring an average of around 40 pts a game. there should have been no way that Hull should have won that game

He had Jamie Mathiou on the bench, not sure who this helps.

I see yer point G but Barrie mac wasn't a pivotal member of the pack in 98 and murray made his selections on that basis whereas 2005 he was imo a more crucial member of that pack.
I know exactly where you are coming from but i just think the comparison is an inaccurate one to make.

A bit like Saints winning how many games on the trot to the GF in 2008, beating us 3 times in a row and tonking us in the play offs?

Ah, like the discussion we had last week.

What teams Should and shouldn't do when internet afficionadoes look at their strengths and weakness on a paer list.

A question, if there was no way Hull should have won that game and if we were so superior why did Barrie Mac's omission and Senior fitness matter?

Its a fair cop. I concede.

We didn't play the 2005 CC final with 2 props either.

Sorry, I'd forgot the specialist mobile prop forwardry skills of JJB.

In 2005 barrie was not a crucial member of the pack. His role had diminished in 2004 (see his game time in the 2004 GF) and by the following year he was at Widnes.

Barrie was pretty much at the end of the line in 2005. His omission from the 2005 CC Final was harsh and I felt desperately sorry for but to say he would have made a difference bears no reality to the level of performance he was giving us then, legend that he was/is.

Barrie was certainly at or nearer his peak in 1998 than he was 7 years later. Murray didn't ship him out for form, but for poor discipline. I am not suggesting Murray was wrong but find it odd that Smith gets so harshly scrutinized yet Murray's decision is never mentioned.