It happens in games when one centre/wing pair will see little of the ball, its not been a reaccuring theme for Watkins this year so no need to worry. Probably just McDermott's tactics of thinking Saints are weaker down that side for some reason, remember the work Shenton got through in defence in the Grand Final before getting injured.

Unless you're trying to spin the ball there's no difference passing left or right (or there shouldn't be) - I never had any preference when I played although I can't spin it off my left hand I can chuck it the same distance (my 9 year old can spin it off both hands though). Webb's long pass is spun and he heavily favours doing that off his right hand. I can't see any other reason why we shouldn't be able to attack wherever we think the defence is weakest - left or right. There would be some justification for loading one side with a particular combination (as in the days of Ali, Keef and McGuire in their best days), but usually that's done because you don't have options on the other side of the field as good. We should be able to move the ball right at will. There's also no reason why Watkins or Hardaker couldn't do what Innes and Iro used to do a lot which was double up on the same side.
It seems strange that Watkins saw so little ball when he causes havok with nearly every touch.

I'm worried that there are props looking tired when we have 5 out of 17, it certainly limits our chances of changing the game if all we have is props.
Smith didn't do brilliantly but neither did the whole team, I hope he gets a chance of a run in the team when the rest of the team turn up so we can know if he still has anything to offer.
We were going to struggle in attack without Webb and Mcguire as our main attacking move goes through both their hands, shame no one else could step up to the mark

I agree re-Smithy Hopie althoughhe wasn't very good ther were many more who have had plenty of SL games under their belts that were way off what we'd expect.

DHM - I don't think Hardaker's problem is passing so much as the lines he runs and awareness of where Hall is at all times. When people say he 'never got a chance to pass to Hall' in a game its more that he never got himself into a position where setting up Hall in space was an option. Against Salford their defence was so poor that it would have been an ideal opportunity for Hardaker to start trying to set up Hall. In the end he got a hat-trick and Hall got nothing, but it won't have helped Hardaker's development much.

An exact opposite centre would be Matt Gidley. Not a running threat at all, but caused massive problems because his first thought was always to get a pass to his winger whilst taking defenders out. IMO Hardaker should have a look at some video of the likes of Gidley and Jamie Lyon and look at the angles they run and how they nearly always commit defenders to themselves whilst leaving open the possibility of passing.

Senior would be the worst left centre to copy, because he committed defenders by taking the tackle before looking to offload. He could do that because he was immensely strong. Hardaker may develop that power, but if he tried to do what Senior did he'd get smashed.

I've read some of this thread but not all of it. My thoughts are as follows.

Peacock was awful. I don't for any moment think that means he's finished.
Kirke was probably our best forward, and when he was on was our best part of the game. That doesn't mean that he's a world beater.
Hardaker rarely passes to Hall, but he's a young lad learning the position, and should be given time. I don't see why some people see him as a half though
McGuire/Webb wouldn't have made one jott of difference.
Smith disappointed me more. After not being in the team for a while and a chance to impress, I'd expect that he'd show a little bit of enthusiasm with the ball. Just didn't looked bothered. Can't excuse that.
It all boils down to the fact that Saints clearly wanted this game more than we did. Their players this week will have realised that their poor play this season has cost their boss his job, and decided to do something about it. I think if we'd have played well we'd have still struggled to win.

Given this, and our acknowledgement that not all games matter in the long run, could this have been targetted as a low intensity week?

Those two statements are inconsistent.

Webb would (likely) not have been pushed back in goal twice, allowing Saints repeat sets. Leeds would have had ball in hand and a platform to build.

With McGuire and Webb on, would Sinfield have been controlling everything on a day where he could do little right? With that support would he even have been having one of those days? With McGuire and Webb on the pitch would our last tackle options from some very good positions have been "powerplay" inside passes to Kirke or Clarkson or grubbers going dead from Burrow and Smith? Repeat sets or tries there, even with the pack getting beaten and even at 18-0, could have changed the game.

That's where I am with Smiths performance.

Out of everyone he should have been bursting at the seam and busting a gut to impress and re-work his way into the team. A fullback can crack on with his individual performance and there was plenty of traffic coming his way so he could have come out with some personal credability. But he didn't.

'Lethargic' and 'half-d' seems to cover it.

Don't want Smiths bum-boys (who for some foolish reason think he should out Webb for the full-back shirt) saying he hasn't had a chance. He had a big one and blew it.

Wouldnt describe myself as a lee smith bum boy!!!

But I was a fan before he left and thought he could pull through and claim the spot at full back. I was masively disapointed in his performace that at best looked completely uninterested. He has been given a chance and completely blown it. We lost and whoever was at full back we still would have lost but he still could have shown more comittment and desire than he did. I was very dissapointed

Defensive. Who said you were?

I've defended Smith on these forums several times previously.

Despite not being particularly blessed with any real size or pace he was always versatile, dependable and could be relied on to give 100% of whatever he had. I'm no longer seeing that enthusiasm and willingness to put his body on the line. Even allowing for the possibility that he's carrying an injury or doesn't feel particularly loved by the present coaching staff he's looking a shadow of his former self.

I unfortunately concur with this: sad days indeed.

Theres always one player who gets the pick of the critisism after a performance like that.

The truth is, Smith was no worse than Sinfield, Burrow, Watkins, Hardaker, Peacock, McShane, Kylie, Delaney, Ablett, Clarkson, or BJB. But of course certain ones you are not allowed to critisise with certain posters.

Smith probably could have done better in some instances. But let's be honest, you could easily have had Billy Slater back there, and Saints would still have topped 40 points.

Our problems are far worse with regards the half back spots (with McGuire out), than they are with the fullback spot.

I've never understood the ploy. A tap 20 is a nice breather, but the flip side is that a set of 6 defending your own line is extremeely energy sapping, and momentum changing. Webb is just as likely to leave a ball to go out then get caught in goal, and did it a couple of times in the WCC IIRC. He's also been known to be far too leisurly in the returning of the ball.

On McGuire, he could have made a difference, or he could have been unfit, and ineffective. Either way, the root of our defeat was not our inability to create, it was the fact we were physically dominated in practically every contact situation. I don't see that McGuire would have had much influence on this really.

I would say that what you say is correct. I think people's main beef with Smith was that this was his chance to stake a claim. He should have been bang up for it, I know I would have in the same scenario. He wasn't. He looked quarter-ar5ed