First half: 3 carries and lost the ball twice.
Second half: 1 carry - taken off.

What a star!

Yes one of our backup props had a bad game.

Surely more thread worthy is how appauling our starting number 9 was yet again. Its more than a little concerning at this end of the season.

Yet again LD?
I agree he had a mare especially the 5th tackle options and losing the ball after 3 good runs from DH but i don't remember him being as bad as that before??

He has done a job for us on not a lot of the salary cap. A decent signing for me although he was never going to be a worldbeater

JJB has had similar stats if not worse this season.

It's the same every week. Occasionally one of his Hollywood offloads will find a man after a couple of bounces but the chances are slim. I'm convinced that he tried to reinvent himself as an offloading prop at some point in his career , but somewhere along the line he forgot that keeping hold of the ball is an option. He's a trier, that's for sure, but give me Ian Kirke over Moore every time.

I second this. I've not noticed him being that bad, but he had a very poor game on Friday. Near the Wakey try line he was pretty hapless.

Couldn't agree more, much prefer kirke over Moore.

I agree, unfortunately the rest of the team had similar problems near the Wakefield line too.
I wish they would let Sutcliffe play his natural game and not so it seems tell him to pass the ball on every time he gets it.

I have to agree

It's a BIG problem and has been all season.....utterly crap after so much possession from two 40/20's (equalling the rest of the season put together?) and numerous drop outs.......

By restricting Sutcliffe it makes the decision to slot Sinfield back in much more an easy one for our esteemed coach. (Although in fairness he is needed back, if only for his place goal kicking)

How is Sutcliffe being "restricted"? He's taken the line on plenty since he came into the team, certainly no less than Sinfield does. The try he scored at home to Widnes and the set up for Burrow at Widnes spring to mind straight away.

He's also demonstrated his attacking kicking game, demanding the ball at first receiver on the last tackle.

To suggest that he is somehow being deliberately told not to do what would be best for the team just so McDermott can find an excuse to drop him when Sinfield is fit is laughable.

I know salary cap dictates so much the signing of squad players these days...but there is no comparison between Amor, Kirke and Moore. Amor played well all night and only started making errors at the end when he was left on the pitch too long ( probably down to Kirmonds injury)...I would far rather have him in our side than those two.

You would have to be pretty oblivious to the game not to recognise that he is not been given the role he would generally do.

The examples you state may well be the case, but not exactly anything close to what you would expect from your stand off. He is clearly being managed, and whether that's better for the player and team is subjective opinion, but definitely happening.

He certainly seems to have a lot more to his game than he is "allowed" to demonstrate at the moment.

Back on topic, Moore made some poor choices on Friday, but for effort and enthusiasm alone I would have in front of Kirke every time.

Moore was poor but McShane had an absolute mare.

I have consistently stated the same .....Leeds continue to consistently make mistakes with the retention/departure policy of forwards. Kirke and Moore still with us; Lauititi and Amor not so....compounded by Griffin being preferred over Amor and now the loss of Baldwinson & Tonks.

All the more confusing when compared to the policy on the backs....largely to date all positive.