Ignoring the pointless insults, it sounds like both sides could take something from the game, which is always good. The Bulls played hard and put in a good effort without Orford. Leeds muscled up in the second half with injuries.

I really do think that if the Bulls get the right coach for next year you will be very competitive.

You talk sense, you can come again!


I'll say it again, great effort by all 34 players on that pitch.

Matt Diskin's foot did - twice at the same play the ball.

I agree that it's disgraceful how even the most fundemental and basic skill (such as playing the ball correctly) is almost entirely ignored by the officials. Even James Child who until recently appeared to require a genuine looking attempt with the foot waited until the 60th minute to mention it at Knowsley Road. 59 minutes too late.

The ref was bad for both sides - fact.
Sheriffe was appalling - fact.
Reardon was, and has been all season, a waste of cap - fact.
We were well beaten by a team who did not have full use of their interchanges due to injury - fact.

Where is the gloating Andrew. I am just saying it as I see it.

That was a typical flat Macca performance IMO.

A few thoughts:

Clearly the sun got in Sheriffe's eyes with the bombs. So why the hell didn't we deliver some in the first half?

A lot of people thought Burrow's absence from the Leeds side was good for us. We underestimated the threat of Maguire though. How much does that lad love playing against us at Odsal? Always on the score sheet.

A fair effort from the boys though, not too disappointed. I wish we wouldn't resort to carping about the ref on this board, it smacks of desperation. The reality is we were beaten by the better side. Let's move on to the next challenge.

Put a few things right and I think you've got a great chance against wire next week.

On the positive side there was plenty of effort and we made plenty of opportunities despite being without our leading player for clean breaks and our main playmaker. Defensively we looked pretty solid too despite being without one of our best defenders.

Where we lost the game was that Leeds just had a bit more quality and took all the chances they were presented with. I thought Sinfield, McGuire and Eastwood were the difference between the two sides. Eastwood made a huge impact when he came on and Sinfield's kicking was spot on.

The downside for us was the lack of quality on the edges. We bombed two chances on the wing that should have been taken, Reardon's dropped ball being criminal. Defensively Sheriffe didn't do so well under the bombs but Sinfield had ages to put the kicks in, there was very little pressure applied to him. Add to that the difficulty in taking those kicks and you have to credit the kicker really. As for Halley's last ditch defence on McGuire I think I could've made a better attempt.

The second half saw our kicking game fall apart and we got very little quality ball. Leeds really turned the screw. In the forwards I thought we tired a bit in the heat and lacked someone like Eastwood to get the side on the front foot. I'm not sure what McNamara sees as Kopczak's role but for such a big lad he spends very little time on the field and makes very little impact. I'd say he needs to be much more aggressive and really get stuck in. If he's interchange prop he had to make an impact and he just doesn't do that at the moment.

For me our stand out players were L'Strange, Godwin and Whitehead. Platt was the best of the threequarters despite one howler.

Hopefully we'll have some or all of the three absentees back for next week. With them in the side we're a different proposition.

Some Leeds fans think we play better with McGuire & Sinfield at 6 & 7

I thought Bradford played ok, a bit more composure and it would have been a lot closer, my only worry for Bradford is your lack of speed.

Not too much to disagree with there Sam.

I was disappointed with the result, but not with the performance given the personnel missing.

I think the top 3 are going to be the current top three.
I then see a mini league between Hull, Leeds, us and Hudds for 4,5,6,7. We need to aim to finish as high in this mini league as possible.

As it stands now I'd predict Leeds, Us, Hull & Hudds.
All things considered, I'd say that would be a good season!

Not a bad summation there IMO, Sam.

I think Koppy's limitations demonstrate why we signed Scully, and why we are missing him? I think he'd be far more effective for impact off the bench. But we are where we are.

The limitations on the wings are plain for all to see when up against a side with teh quality of Leeds - although Rikki had been a big improver this year, and IIRC he only dropped one bomb which was straight out of the (dropping) sun? - but in fairness the Chairman fully acknowledged our weakness there at the Fans' Forum. The usual "financial constraints". The same reason that we have a small squad with limited strength in depth, which is why losing your two best and most key players as well as Langley and a key prop not yet played hits us harder than most other clubs. Some inconvenient truths regarding which the inhabitants of Planet Eddie are in denial.

Leeds were very good indeed in that second half despite their lack of interchange options, but we still managed to contain them to only two scores. The Maguire/Sinny combo looked pretty potent IMO, and that may have made a lot of the difference. I do think though that all those decisions going against us in the first half must have messed with our players' heads. And not for the first time this season either. It's all very well folk saying Silverdud and Halibut were bad for both sides (they were), but he was bad for US predominantly in the first. When the damage was done, IMO. Not for the first time.

Folk have played hell about Sykes being run down by a prop, but we used to see Fielden doing that - IIRC he ran down (or nearly did) Paul Sampson, supposed fastest guy in the game, on more than one occasion. Did wonder if Skyes might be carrying a bit of an injury, but with Kearney on the park we'd have been a different proposition in the speed stakes.

Anyway, the scoreboard records the result. We probably bombed the game through dropped chances, but the difference between the two teams was not really that great.

That's where Kearney's been coming into play for us.

Generally speaking I thought the final score reflected the difference between the sides in quality. However when compared with some floggings we've had I thought it wasn't a bad showing all things considered.

I prefer not to go into the whole ref/video ref discussion. We had our chances to win the game but blew them. The officials made some odd calls but the result of the game was always in our own hands.

As I said at the start of the season, finishing 5th would represent a very good season indeed considering our squad and the money situation. The side have shown they're capable of it too. I think 6th or 7th is more where we'll end up.

Indeed. But having made one rick, Sheriffe took almost everything that was thrown at him with some steepling kicks, yet due to his howlers (bad, true) all these seem to be forgotten. Why, the kick by the touchline, which he had no choice but to catch and then get instantly pushed in touch, the guy behind me was having a go at Sheriffe for that! WTF was he supposed to do? Great kick, perfect de-fuse under pressure, applause all round.


I agree, but only to an extent. Our kicking game is, mostly, one of the poorest on display. I don't know why, seeing as we have players who have done well elsewhere in the role, but really, almost all our kicks were gash, and made to look worse by Leeds' kicks, all of which severely tested us all day.

Still though, SL being a game of momentum and all that, I reckon had we not bombed the Reardon chance, and of course we should have been way ahead given the appalling decisions for Leeds' forward-passes try, and the nero incident, we would have had every chance of winning the game. that is not complaining, however. No ref is perfect, they all miss things, and Leeds got the rub of the green with the majority of debatable calls; and as for howlers like Reardon's, well, you will tend to lose (and deservedly so) if you fritter away gilt-edged tries against dangerous opposition.

It is stating the obvious to say we will be better when Langley (esp), Orford and Kearney return but the truth is that with the squad we put out yesterday, this time last year most of our critics and in-house detractors would have expected a right towelling, not a narrow defeat. They would have expected a shambolic effort, not a well-organised, hard-slog 80 minutes of good quality attack and defence, individual ricks aside.

And at this stage of the season they would certainly not have expected us to be, as we are level on points with Leeds, who are being held up as some sort of shining beacon to be aspired to in some myopic quarters, yet needed that narrow win to draw level with the Bulls.

Absolutely, that's why the "Oh, it even itself out over a game/season" comments annoy me so much. If those wrong decisions had gone our way in the 1st half, it would have been a different second half. Going into the break 12 points up, in the ascendancy, it would have been a better second half. So no, they don't even themselves out.

And for example, next week, in knock out rugby, a poor decision can end your cup run. That's not going to even itself out is it?

Thought it was a good show from your players TBH. To go into a game like that missing two key playmakers always puts you on the backfoot. The lack of composure comes off the back of missing those players. Although Sykes will work his nuts off for you at SO he clearly doesn't have the quality of Orford and doesn't have the experience in that position.

Like I said, good show from your guys. Here's to a Leeds V Bradford CC Semi-Final!

I think that to say Leeds got the rub of the gren overall is very harsh. The first try was from an obvious forward pass, but none of the others were. To say that Eastwood's pass to McGuire for his third try was forward, as some have, is laughable.

The Nero no-try was a 50-50 for me... I can see why it was disallowed, but it could just as easily have been allowed. As has been mentioned earlier, the moment he touched Donald, by the letter of the law, he infringed with him when he didn't have the ball, regardless of the amount of force used. Whether the law used in this case is a good one or not is another issue, the moment contact was made (when it didn't need to be made) the video ref was put into a position where he didn't have much choice. The McGuire no try was also a 50-50 - I've seen tries with far less downward pressure given before (and even tries with zero downward pressure - in fact with the ball nowhere near the ground - as per the try Saints got against Salford last week thanks to Saint Steve giving them benefit of the doubt!) but at the same time I can see where there was doubt on the video ref's part.

So, 1 decision against the Bulls (Leeds' first try) and two marginals - one of which went their way, the other didn't.

Then factor in the fact that Leeds were twice pulled up for forward passes from Eastwood, neither of which looked forward in my opinion (back in his prime Robbie Paul threw passes like that out all day long and never got pulled for it - Bradford fans didn't seem to be complaining much at the time!) one of which would have put McGuire clear, with a one on one with Halley (I think?) which, as was shown in the 2nd half, would have had every chance of resulting in a try, and one which definitely would have created a try for Ryan Hall.

So, one big call aganist Bradford, but two against Leeds. Overall, it worked out fairly even - if anything in Bradford's favour. Add the injury problems Leeds had in the second half, and to say that Bradford were more unlucky than Leeds over the whole match is stretching it a bit!

Good to see some more sensible posts on here this morning than there were in the immediate aftermath last night though! One of the major differences for me was that Leeds' kicking game was very effective, whereas Bradford's became more and more predictable and unthreatening as the game went on. I know you had a makeshift halfback partnership, but I would rather see a player try something different and fail than try nothing at all - in the second half almost every one of Sykes' kicks was identical, and Leeds were able to either let them run dead, or run them back under little to no pressure.

It was to Bradford's credit that they defended pretty well throughout, otherwise the winning margin could have been a lot higher. At least one, if not two new wingers is a big priority for you next year!

I really can't be bothered reading all the comments, so I'll just give my two penneth.

First half, we were probably the better side, albeit it was close. Couple of poor calls went our way (blatant forward pass on first Leeds try and non-existant "push" from Nero) but overall not too bad.
Second half, we were tactically outclassed. Leeds showed exactly what we should have been doing the entire first half and constantly put the bombs up where our winger was going to be struggling with the sun in his eyes. Why the hell we never did that in the first half, I still don't know. It was a perfect tactic which worked every time and we had no answer to it. As a consequence, our players heads went down and we lost all momentum.
We missed the organisation that Orford and Kearney bring and we desperately missed Godwin when he was off the field (Wagga was easily our most dangerous player).
The video ref decision was evened out with McGuire's touchdown being disallowed when it should have been given.

Overall a fair scoreline I thought. We missed the organiser and we were beaten by superior tactics.

Also, had Reardon taken that try towards the end of the first half, it could have been a different game. There were way too many pointless errors (our completion rate can't have been good) and you just can't afford to do that against a side like Leeds.

Yep, said the same in the Sheriffe thread. He handled the hardest of the lot very well but had nowhere to go but touch. Was our resident numpty the bloke behind you?

That said the first bomb he dropped was the easiest and it opened the floodgates as Sinfield and McGuire never left him alone after that.




Our kicking game seemed to get worse as the game wore on with our kicks simply allowing Leeds to take a 20m tap. As you say Sykes can kick the ball but his rugby brain leaves a bit to be desired. Not having Orford made a big difference in this area. Not sure what the Bulls plan for the kicking game was but I'm sure McNamara didn't issue instructions to tamely boot the ball dead after each set.



If we'd taken all our chances it may have all been different. However as you say you can't afford to blow chances like Reardon's.



You're preaching to the converted here.



You're right, though I do think that Leeds have more potential for improvement than us even taking into account missing players on both sides.

Some rambling rambles:
Even though there were plenty of incidents in the first half I thought it was poor quality, especially Leeds. Why Macca chose not to give one of his legendary half-time motivational chats escapes me. As the game wore on it reminded me of Bradford of the last few years with no creative force, apart from occasional at hooker. At least with Deacon you feared his kicking near the line.
To say Leeds had more of any questionable decisions is cheap. Sure the first ccouple went against Bradford, but Nero committed an offence by the letter of thelaw however you struggle to find a sane person who would say it was harsh if it had been given. Sinfiield's pass was slightly forward without doubt, but that doesn't stop Bradford tackling to prevent the try. After that 3 try or try scoring opportunities were called back, none of which I agreed with, but as Phil Clarke said, he is yet to see a player who doesn't make mistakes. McGuire's disallowed thrid try was a try to JJB, if not McGuire, as the ball went back anyhow.
In the hottest day in Odsal memeory Leeds played with 1 sub & endured the conditions better
Leeds had arguably more better quality players out but Bradford missed their, arguably, best 3 players more.

Haven't seen the game yet but will watch closely when I get my hands on the DVD. From what I've been told HyperbolicRhino's account seems more accurate than all this talk of the referee turning the game against Bradford. Sounds like ME was right about the ref being poor for both sides.

I'd agree with that but I'd add that you failed to put pressure on our kickers (as pointed out by someone earlier - Bullseye I think). Sinfield and McGuire are both good kickers, but only if given the space to do so. Under pressure they can both be made to look ordinary in this department. Having said that, it's much less easy to apply pressure when your team's on the back foot which yours was for much of the second half.

Sam, you're an oasis of common sense amidst a desert of idiocy on this thread. I'll not occupy the same high road and will touch upon the officials later.

Both teams were missing quality, key players. There's no mileage to be gained for either set of supporters there. Leeds suffered greater disruption through missing players during the game.

Our superior pace showed again. As the Sky team opined when I watched later that night, Leeds can score from anywhere but you felt the Bulls needed to be near the line to do so (see Kirke on Sykes). Also, we were simply more clinical and smarter with the game. Our use of the high kick in the 2nd half when the sun was to our advantage was in sharp contrast to the Bulls abject failure to utilise that advantage in the first.

I thought our defence was very tenacious for the 2nd week running and overall, that was the key.

The contentious stuff:

The Sinfield to Delaney pass for our first try was not forward, IMO. It was a peach of a pass. He passes before the white line and it's received at the same point. The call was close and marginal, at best, either way. That it has occupied the minds of so many of your supporters during the game and since is further evidence of this irrational obsession your less rational/intelligent posters have gained with the direction of Leeds passes. The irony that it comes during a game when the referee chalked of a legitimate Leeds try with a poor call on a forward pass and two other try scoring opportunities seems lost on the Bulls fans. That some of the Bulls fans, who have now overtaken the Saints Pop Stand occupants as the most myopic of "forward" chanting fools in the game, are still not satisfied with the influence they exerted over a weak referee is laughable. Did you get the irony in the Leeds fans mocking you with constant cries of "forward"?

The nero "Push" was a soft call in our favour. That said, he shouldn't have laid hands on the player. I'd have been upset if a decision like that had gone against us but I'd have also been upset at the stupidity of our player for placing hands on the defender.

The McGuire, crab-like, no try, was an example of your team getting a massive slice of luck so these things do even themselves out.

You played well but you were also well out played in the second half. Your wingers couldn't take the chances created for them and your kickers couldn't take advantage when the elements were in their favour. The referees display and any alleged leaning to either side had nothing to do with the outcome.

There were a handful of calls that could have gone either way, you only get one chance to call a forward pass & I admit to initially thinking Sinfield's pass was level. The others that were referred to the video ref were effectively out of his hands. Silverwood might have made a one error missing a forward pass, the others could all have been called either way. That was far less than most players who have to make a fraction of the decisions the ref has to make. Blaming the ref is a cheap excuse, from either side.

Er...most of us have said that the ref (and the blind touchie and the vidref) was bad for both sides.

The only real debate, if such there is, is whether he was more bad for us first half - and whether that did more damage to us cos it messed with players' heads - and more bad for Leeds second half. I tend to subscribe to that view and, listening to half-time discussion amongst the massed ranks of pee-ers, the general mood (rightly or wrongly) was seething with anger against Silverwood. FWIW.

But Silverwood never dropped the ball several times on Leeds' line or watched as Maguire skipped past him or left his wingers exposed to high kicks and chasing hordes. The extra bit of class that Leeds had on display made the difference there, as quite a few have observed?

ATEOTD Sadler in LE probably has it right IMO (shock horror!) when he concluded that our absentees were rather more crucial to us than Leeds' were to them, and the result maybe reflected at least in part a combination of that and the respective costs of the teams out on the park. I thought we certainly showed no lack of effort or desire, but were a bit lacking in composure and completion. Leeds, by contrast, were a bit more composed and completed clinically IMO, and defended outstandingly in the second half. For those reasons, they deserved to win.