TRIES
WERE

OH DEAR

To try to make a case against negativity I find somewhat ironic coming form a high priest from the Church of Negativity.

The object of any game is to win. In a knock out situation most coaches understand the need to give nothing away. In the Cup Final it is even more important to do this. You could say your "nothing play" actually is planned to give "nothing away" but you do not seem to grasp this aspect of a game plan and the importance of sticking to it.

It is not a negative play to control field position. It is not negative play to keep the opposition in their own 22 and it is not negative play to assert control over where you allow the opposition to regain possession after your own set. Indeed applying this control puts great pressure on the opponents whereas allowing them meter making kick returns puts the pressure back on the kick and hope ploy.

Had Sutcliffe or Hardaker in the London game had the nous or ability to kick for field position when we were 30-8 up we almost certainly would have another 2 points.

As far as I'm concerned that try would have rightly been ruled out for the blatant forward pass if Leeds didn't have such a tight grip on the game. If that forward pass had been given we'd have kept them pointless in the second half.



We put our faith in our defensive strength to not allow Cas to get back in the game.

IMO if the forwards were asked how they wanted to play it they would have all said what we were doing was the best way. Less running around chasing after kicks and wasting energy and more time on winning their battle. I don't think Cas will have been heartened by us kicking into touch, I think they will have known that we weren't going to mess this up and I think they will have been almost resigned to defeat.

In many ways it was a Jose Mourinho type mentality where you've got the win almost in the bag, don't put yourself at risk chasing an even bigger lead that you don't even need. Just kill the game as much as possible and lift the trophy at the final whistle. Given our record in Challenge Cup finals I find it ludicrous that it's being questioned.

Where have I ever advocated negative play?



What is there to grasp, since when have Leeds or any other club used the nothing play in the way Leeds used it on Saturday?

Will we see such a negative tactic ever employed again - I imagine and hope not. I gave examples of good attacking kicks that led to pressure and/or a score - I also gave the example of a negative nothing play leading to the only Castleford score of the second half. Had Leeds not gone negative Castleford probably wouldn't have troubled the scorers again such was Leeds' dominance of the match so being negative actually cost Leeds points and arguably gave us a quarter of rugby with the lead needlessly placed back in jeopardy. Thankfully McGuire (either to instruction or departing from it - who knows) put in the correct attacking kick and Jones-Buchanan/Bailey followed up to force the position for Hall to capitalise during the next set.



Where have I said that it is? I'm only questioning why Leeds stopped attacking (with control) on the last and opting instead for some negative kicks?



Of course it isn't and no-one has said it is. The kicks Leeds were employing (in attacking positions) were already achieving this outcome so again why go negative? An attacking kick from an attacking position needn't allow meters to be conceded at all, just as the two second-half kicks I've highlighted from either side of the negative period didn't.

I've given examples from the game - where were the examples of Leeds attacking kicks giving up cheap meters.



I would agree there was always likely to be an issue of game management at the Hive brought about by the inevitable non-selection of certain key individuals but that should have been addressed by the coaching staff in the game preparation. Sinfield, McGuire and Burrow were never going to play and this will have been known all week so there must have been a plan in place for someone to take control of any last tackle plays.

However we were discussing Leeds opting for negative kicks when in attacking field positions in the second-half at Wembley and during that period you mention from the week before (when Leeds surrendered 32 - 6) I imagine they saw precious little possession in comparable field position.

I'm not aware of Leeds or any other club using a "nothing play" ever. I don't think any such thing exists, however many times you choose to repeat the phrase. If by "nothing play" you mean kicking for touch in order to avoid broken field kick returns and force a team to drive the ball from their own line then it's very ignorant, IMO, to label such enterprising tactics as "nothing plays".

Yes I agree that the pass was forward but there will always be some that are missed both ways during any given game - but the resulting try still stands. Jewitt making the break had nothing to do with a missed forward pass, Watkins missing a one on one with Shenton had nothing to do with the missed forward pass either. If there was a defensive headlock placed on Castleford by opting for a negative kick it wasn't a very effective one on that occasion. A measured kick slid into a corner (just as Sinfield had executed perfectly on the set before) caused Castleford much more discomfort. Leeds got punished for going negative and it was a needless self-inflicted wound, IMO.



Castleford should have been heartened that Leeds were not asking more questions on their attacking sets by opting to take a breather instead. The breather wasn't justgiven to the attacking side but equally to the relieved defending side also and isn't it acknowledged that it's defence that drains the most petrol from the tank and that is especially so when it's red zone defense so Castleford were given the bigger benefit from the breather.



Agreed Leeds didn't need a bigger lead at that stage but to sit on what they had was only ever likely to see it reduced - isn't that what occurred during the negative play third quarter that allowed Castleford back into a contest they were barely a part of in the opening forty.