Leeds lost any small chance they had of pulling anything out of the bag at that time, at 18-6 down, when Burrow came on for Buderus. After that, Leeds never looked like scoring.

Buderus was outstanding in defence and attacking intensity in the first half (including his try and his work for Hardaker's near miss), and any intensity we had evaporated when he left te field. There was no urgency or organisation at acting-half, and if the instruction was for the little man to run at the Wire defence then it was either a dumb instruction or Rob didn't hear it.

This is not really a criticism of Burrow. You cannot carry a lightweight hooker-who-isn't-a-hooker against a good side, and he really may as well not have been on the pitch for the last 25 minutes. McShane, on the other hand, may have added something.

We lost as soon as they scored the 1st try of the 2nd half then we resorted to pathetic defence ,offloading to no-one ,one up no clueless RL and petulant discipline.
It also wasn't helped by a coach who by his admission that they were available failed to select Burgess ,Clarkson and Mcshane.
Great call Brian!!

Couldn't help thinking - what a difference a coach makes!

Quite agree

It is odd that you find a hooking rotation that seems to work only to ditch it for no apparent reason.

the best recruitment we have made in a long time.....Mr T Smith

Well it was win or lose at that point with the change. With hindsight, the obvious move was really Burrow in the halves and Sinfield to loose, and play with an extra pivot. Easier after the game though

It's not rocket science during the game either Richie. Don't you play your scrum half at scrum half when you have a hooker who can do the 80?

And if you can see what Buderus does....and if I can see what Buderus does.....as do many others.....why do the decision makers not see it ? Absolutely shocking decision. McShane did not deserve to be dropped. Burrow should have been on from the begining.

Warrington are very impressive though......rather like the Leeds team of a few years ago. Brilliant in attack, but also punishing in defence.

I could see what we were trying to do - expect tired markers at that point and get Burrow out and up. The way Warrington's defence push up so fast in the middle means an acting half beating the markers is already past the defensive line. We weren't getting quick PTBs though, so it wasn't going to happen.

We haven't really had quick ptb at all this year. On other threads I've alluded to a lack of technique, and our body positioning in contact is appauling. With regard to hitting them with some pace up the middle, we could easily have brought Burrow on at 7 and still done this.

Also if we feel that they are flying up with good line speed, why didn't we chip over early in the game to "keep them honest"? Poor coaching I think.

as soon as the team was announced!

and we all know what the No.1 common denominator is............................Smith.

You have half backs with a kicking skill - we simply don't possess that skill in our halves, makes you wonder what they do in training?

A short kick off to the tallest man in the Warrington side - unreal!!

Yes, fair enough it was a strange team to pick, but I wasn't unappy at half-time.

A half of hard defence against a top attacking side had led to them scoring one legitimate try, but good intensity & good kick/chase gave us the upper hand in the second quarter and we scored one try and narrowly bombed a couple more. Many weren't playing particularly *well* but Buderus and, to an extent, Sinfield had dragged their teammates around the field and into a good position to take the game.

But then came whatever was said in the halftime teamtalk, and also the subsquent exposure of our powderpuff bench.