OK, so the disappointment has finally kicked it and credit Batley for all of it.

I didn't go, so cannot comment on the game, but I did listen to the Radio.

Jack Dearden said we were shocking and at times 'clueless'. Worrying when Jack says this as a lot points out to poor formation and lack of leadership.

He then interviewed Neil Jukes who gave the listeners the impression that it was no surprise whatsoever to why Batley won. If Leigh played well and still lost, then there is much to fear this season.

I am all for sportsmanship, so credit him for that, but not many of the worlds population would have predicted Batley to win bearing the investment Derek has placed into the club.

If performances remain stale win lose or draw, I can see someone else taking over the reigns. Coaching Leigh is now a high pressured job, but some people are more prominent in 'No 2' roles rather than the head Chief.

We have got Oldham and London at home coming up, and to be honest, we should win both very comfortably. The pressure is already on Jukes in my opinion. Hopefully, the team will respond.

Lets judge him after 10 games at least.... winning every game last year meant nothing, we only need to come fourth to reach the middle 8s.

I think we should have more squad rotation to keep the players fresh, if that means losing a few games then so be it....

Blimey, one game in and calling for the poor blokes head.
I understand Leeds lost their first game, must get rid of the coach!
It's a 10,000 metres not a dash, as was proved last season finishing top means nowt in real terms, top four and then onwards and upwards, (or not) Paul must have rated him Derek also, as I say give the bloke a chance.

Blimey. I'm glad I'm not someone that has to keep you happy!

There's obviously a step up for Neil, just as there was for Paul, who was not great at first but turned out to become a very highly rated coach indeed.
Rather than pointing at Neil, I would be looking at Paul- I admire his integrity and morals etc, but maybe sometimes you just have to bite your lip for a while, meet your commitments and move on at a time to suit everyone with a proper succession plan in place. In this instance his timing was probably as bad as could be and the club has to deal with that in the best way possible.

I think Neil will do a good job but the transition won't be seamless...fans be ready.

Its not only Neil who has had to make the step up.Who fills his previous role and duties now? Have we not got a rung missing off the ladder,or did we have too many rungs to start with.

Either way, its a transitional period for all concerned.As long as Neil retains the commitment and respect of the players and only he knows that. Then there won't be any need to question? his position.

It wasn't Jukes dropping the ball it was the players.If Rowley had been in charge would we be calling for him to go

I thought the main problem on Sunday was a complete failure of our backs to take advantage of some great work from our forwards. They got enough ball in good position and didn't do nearly enough with it. Our halves in particular were very ineffective and it eventually took Mickey Higham to grab control and set up a couple of tries. The only backs who did a good enough job were Worthington who defended well and did ok in attack, and Rangi WAS having a good game until he dropped those 2 wicked bombs towards the end of the match. Some of Ryan's kicks near the line were awful and weren't even on the last tackle. Riddy got caught with the ball in hand far too often and fired out some shocking passes leading to dropped balls and turnovers.

The other problem was that our defence that was so good when pinning Batley deep in their own half seemed to fall to pieces when defending our own tryline.

That, combined with giving away more pens and dropping far more ball than the opposition, really let us down. Also, Batley's kicking game was far better, especially in the 2nd half.

Unbelievable topic, is it any wonder we attract ridicule from across the Pennines?

It was watching the same tactics as last year, nothing had changed. Kear is smart as where the coaches in the 8's, especially Marshall, they play the ref and cut out the space out wide - at that point we are clueless until Higham ran down the middle and they were knackered. Then back to dumb RL and we are P1L1. Not the end of the world but we have huge strengths in the pack and a halve who will terrify defences like he did on Sunday by running at them. Monkey off the back and now time to show what we are all about, give Neil 10 games and he will come good possibly support him with a DoR at that point dependent on circumstance - old head to help him reach his potential quicker

Taken the thoughts right out of my mind, Nozzy. Our big forwards did lay the ideal platform for our backs, especially in that critical first half when we had the benefit of the slope and strong wind. Yet our half backs seemed virtually anonymous. Hence our threequarters never really got going.

Also, our defence was brutal in their half of the pitch, yet dissolved near our line.

Their kicking game, in the second half, showed us what we should have been doing in the first half. This game is always going to be remembered for Rangi's two dropped catches, yet there were two other crucial kicks in that second half, that saw us wanting. First Dom Brambani's excellent 40/20 when nobody was at home, and secondly Southernwood's (I think) crafty little cross kick, for Ulugia's second try. He plucked the ball virtually out of Adam's grasp, and I thought that Adam was caught sleeping there.

Sorry to divert from the thread - my view is that Neil contributed a lot to the previous coaching regime, and has to be given time - but I just felt that Nozzy's post hit the nail right on the head, for me.

Its only the start of the trip.
Thought we played poorly Sunday especially first half we dominated for most of the half.
Someone posted you dont play football going downhill what tosh with the possession we had.Having said that we either mis timed the passes forward or dropped it.First time we got Rangi in the line and ball through more than one pair of hands we scored.Higham had a good game but we never saw half backs at all first half apart from the try.
Rangi gave us the one moment of class in the whole game.We thought he didnt look confident in the warm up catching so it proved.The two he missed were hardly bombs any decent leyth grandma would have caught the second one in her pinny.He also knocked on behind his own line, game changers.Rowley often only used 16 men.Thought we could have used Foster earlier
or if the coach does not have total faith in him yet abandon the two hooker set up in favour of another experienced impact player.
Bring on the roughyeds.

Jukes has to be given a chance,I was disappointed with the display on Sunday, but a couple of positive points, Higham had a good game , Ryan looks to have found his passion again after scoring, and it was obvious Rangi is not a full back, I'm sure Jukes will have learned a lot from Sunday, hopefully Hock will be back, along with Patterson,and Lee Smith will make his debut at full back.
For me the Halves have to be Ryan and Rangi Id give Riddy a run at centre,let both him and Ryan run and feed off Rangi, no disrespect to Oldham but against them maybe Jukes could do a bit of trying various tactics,I hope the Leythers turn out to form a good crowd my prediction, Leigh by 42.

The problem with that, for me, is the further you move Ridyard from the action, the less we will be able to employ his creative abilities. Similarly, Rangi has to be in the halves, for me. There's going to be a rare old problem fitting in both of them and Ryan!

Higham had an excellent game, but we can't keep expecting him to do 70-75 minutes. Where's Beswick? (he was in the 19 for Sunday)

Beswick must have been injured. Think somebody has to be injured if you want to make changes to your 19 after it has been handed in and I don't think Foster was initially in our 19 man squad.

Paterson, Hock and Beswick hopefully all back for Sunday plus Lee Smith comes into contention. Any one of those would have made us stronger on Sunday.

We cant have more chiefs than injuns.Cant see Riddy as first choice in centre really
Most games last year we played with 3 props but now we have Patterson to play in the six.Was it only Dixon played 80 mins Sun.After pre season coach must have some early preferences that have been practiced.
Suppose the trick will be to rotate pivots and grafters as the year goes on injuries and form included. Our best combinations will be revealed and we must have them fit and firing for the 8s

There are plenty of combinations and we all like think we are would be Coaches ,my suggestion Jukes could try is have Rangi in the middle of the field with Ryan on one side and Riddy on the other as first receivers, it's an experiment to try against a weaker team like Oldham, again no respect to them.As for Beswick?I keep hearing whispers about him going to Wigan, I don't know how true they are.

A Cas' fan on here was saying they had used Rangi as a substitute dummy half, which would put him in the middle of the field. (unless the PTB was on a touchline, I suppose!

) Like you say, we are all wanabee coaches, and we all know the best team to select. Beats me why they ever appointed PR or NJ, when there are obviously so many cheaper (and obviously better) options around. I would concede that someone (e.g. a clown) would hold an advantage, in that he/she could keep the squad entertained on long coach journeys to the likes of Whitehaven.



I would definitely like to see Bob back though - spelling him and Micky would be highly effective, in my opinion. (as wanabee coach!

)

I would play either Rangi or Ryan at centre on Sunday.

BTW this is Salfordlad. I have had to change my username for reasons I won't bore you with.

You've had more identities than Batmans enemy Twoface, you'll be wearing a blanket over your head next.Charlie knows.

Rangi's a bit small and why play one of the best half backs around, out of position? (again!!) Also, Ryan's not got the build or defence for centre - the first time Reitie got possession, he ran straight at Ryan and flattened him.

By the way, congratulations on your first post Frank - I wonder what nom-de-plume Charlie would use, if he lost his id?

Ow do Alan, taw reet? Charlie wud av ter call impel Mr Know It All,as ee keeps on telling us Charlie knows.

About the coach - He'll remain coach, but I wonder whether we'll end up with a new Director of Rugby. DB said original plan was for Rowley to step up to that role, so wonder if there's plans to get someone that's played / coached the game before into that role now? Would leave DB to get on with running the club.

As for all the suggestions of playing Brierley / Ridyard / Chase in the centres / hooker / full back. No, just no. Need to pick the best team, not the best individuals. Only case you can make for fitting all 3 into the 17 is if both Foster and Beswick are injured.

I agree, Smith to Full Back and Rangi into the halves. I would hate to drop either Riddy or Ryan as I like and rate them both but tough decisions need to be made and to be honest I don't think either of them could complain too much about being dropped based on their performances on Sunday. Neither was anything close to their best.

Chase at 6 / Ryan at 7

or

Riddy at 6 / Chase at 7

Correct and watch this space, it should happen pretty soon, unless DB is doing his damnedest to get PR to consult in some capacity. A #2 stepping up to #1 with such a high-profile squad seems a near impossible task to manage. And I guess the character of a coach is always under question when a defeat happens -- the response will be interesting to watch.

Right i have just watched Neils post match interview and my opinion is that he is as peed off as we are. The way i undersand what he is saying is Batley were able to do almost everything i/we said they would try to do (including peppering Rangi with high bombs), when we played as we talked about we went 10 points clear, To me when he said he wasn't surprised it was because it's how he would of attacked us (So to speak) and he had spoken about it to the team in training, What he could or should have added was "I was however surprised we didn't or wernt able to counter their attacking play after highlighting how they would and did play",but i suppose that could be classed as Blaming the players. I bet the video review was intense.