I think someone earlier in this thread (or possibly another one) quoted McDermott as saying that Burrow was on the bench because he has played a lot of game time this year.

If he is resting players for matches like this then doesn't it say that he feels it was a game we couldn't win so no point risking injuries? Surely we want all our best players on the pitch for as long as possible against the top teams. If anyone needed resting they should have been subbed early last week.

And please please please start with Ali on the bench not on the pitch. Surely last week against Quins showed he is miles better coming on against tired defences rather than starting.

Of the 10 losses in 2007, only 2 were lost by more than 10 points -5 of the losses were by 5 points or less. Even a blind man can see that even if not entirely in top form, we were highly competitive in virtually every game that year. The results (culminating in an absolutely dominant GF win) don't bear up at all some kind of tailing off in 2007.

Smith decided to leave on a relative high, and did so. He won 2 GFs in 4 seasons, and we were runner-up in another year. In the salary cap era that's a tremendous achievement, especially for a club which so dreadfully underperformed prior to Smith's arrival.

I have no doubt Smith probably left at the right time - for both himself and the club. Bluey also did an excellent job in not messing around too much and winning us a further two GFs. Certainly the best coaching performance at Leeds after Smith over the last 30 years.

I wouldn't trade a few better performances this year (or last) for any of the GFs we won, assuming that would have been the trade-off (i.e. starting to dismantle the side in 2009). That's whining loser talk. What I want to see is us move forward as a club - at the moment I see nothing to suggest McDermott can be the coach to revamp the side and get us back challenging for trophies.

If we're now contributing points difference statistics to argue our cases, here's my offering.

Leeds points difference under Smith tailing off
2004
Leeds were not on a relative high at the time Smith's departure was announced, despite your arrogance in suggesting he decided to leave on a relative a high at a pre-determined future point in time.


And McClennan won 2 GF's in 3 seasons.


There are no prizes for coming second.


In that case, McClennan's achievement must be viewed as sensationally stratospheric in comparison.


Agreed, his time was up at the club and a fresh approach was required. Just a shame he moved on to overseeing the most embarrassing international tour of Australia in the history of the sport, despite leaving no stone unturned in his preparations.


Or, more accurately, McClennan coached the club to the same amount of silverware in half the time it took Tony Smith.


The side wasn't dismantled in 2009. Quite the "Magnificent Seven" reverse. Why would dismantling the side in 2009 be considered a trade-off anyhow?


Indications are that he's not the right coach for the job. However, he has been dealt a lousy hand of cards which a more gifted coach would struggle to convert into a winning hand.

We scored a few point net less than in 2006. Wow. We got hammered three times in 2006. By far our biggest defeat in 2007 was 38-14 to Bradford. The next worse was 18-2 away at Wigan. Shocking. All your 'points difference' summary says is we didn't hammer the lesser sides (who according to you don't count anyway) quite as much in 2007 as we did in previous years. My selective stats are as pointless as yours. The only 'stat' that counts is we won the GF in 2007.

Smith had to rebuild half the side between 2005 and 2007. Of the back division that won in 2004 Mathers, Calderwood, Walker and Bai had gone. Of the forwards Ward, McKenna, Furner, Poching, McDermott had gone. That's 9 of the starting 17. Smith managed to oversee a high turnover of players - which happened in 2006-2007, and get us back to winning the GF in 2007.

So to summarise:

1) Smith coached Leeds to our first title in 30 years.

2) Smith oversaw the replacement of over half the starting line-up between 2004 and 2007.

3) In 2006 our form dipped as we started the revamp.

4) Our form came back up again when it counted in 2007 as the side settled. As evidenced by the fact that we won the GF in 2007. Massively. 33-6. (Smith also stated at the time that he was aiming to taper to the end of the season, having learned a lesson from 2005 about burnout).

There's no decline there, and quoting points differences and number of losses doesn't make a decline exist - there simply wasn't one.

Bluey did very well in getting to club to win two more GFs. Not sure of anywhere that I've argued that fact. He did very well. But you really think that breaking a 30-year title drought, revamping the very side that did that and winning it again is in any shape or form less impressive than Bluey's efforts in keeping the side built under Tony Smith on the winning track?

My point about 2009 is that some wannabee 'seers' have been suggesting that the current decline was all-too predictable and we should have started changing things in 2009. Not last season, but 2009 - and it wasn't aimed at you in particular.

I don't disagree at all that McDermott in some ways has been dealt a cruddy hand. I think GH should take a look at himself for the state things are in right now - he's got a coach who may well be the wrong pick combined with dreadful recent signings (for which GH seems to be largely responsible), and probably some player-power issues within the squad.

That doesn't change the fact that GH isn't going to go - and nor should he. What he should do is stump up some cash for a decent coach and get himself out of the recruitment process. Particularly overseas, judging by recent efforts.

Quite a pattern here with Smith and rebuilding. Much the same as at Warrington.

And yet some posters would swear blind Smiths done it all with the same players as previous coaches.