I'm sure you're wrong. Might've been issues around Easter but you don't give him good minutes in the cup semi and final and have him start the next few games with Leuluai on the bench if those 'rumours' of a falling out were long lasting.

Shouldn't believe every rumour you hear on here when common sense proves otherwise. Much like the McDermott has fallen out with Sinfield for retiring rumours when he wasn't picked......that one seems to die a death when it became apparent he was rested for the cup like I said all along. Cue him dropping to the bench just before the next cup game.

I did not miss your point, but I do have trouble understanding your demand for recruitment perfection. In sport it is difficult enough for all your signings to work out even when they are top stars but when they are young players still learning their trade there will always be some that fail to make it.

Your comment about not being trusted to take the field is either very naive as it fails to understand that different circumstances call for different use of subs or you are just using this as part of your ongoing dislike of the coach.

Can you not accept that both Yates and Walters were on the bench due to the injuries to better players. Although you may not agree with BM he does have valid logic in putting his trust in his better players. Had he had the likes of JJB, Delaney and Achurch on the bench he would have been able to rest some of his forwards for longer. But he did not and in the very very unlikely event that your were the coach what would have been your decision given your comments about Yates and Walters?

In the words of the Irishman asked to give directions to the train station "well, I wouldn't start from here".

I think you're overestimating the degree that a few posters on an internet forum amounts to "fan pressure". I don't recall anti-Bailey chants at Headingley or marches on GH's house to get rid of Kirke (G1 might have held a vigil, I don't know)

Either way, any pressure there might have been from fans was to *replace* players not simply cut them, so the board hardly acted on that.

Ok then who would you have had on the bench given our injuries?

I think BM must had read my posting regarding the 'benchman'..... you know he sometimes takes my advice

Like I said, I wouldn't start from there. I wouldn't have a championship plodder Like Yates in a position where he had to he a key member of the game team, and if I did I'd bring him on at 30 minutes to spell our starting props so we can have our best players back on and reasonably rested at the most vital part of the game. That's how most coaches around the world use their front row rotations, but you and BMac know different.

Wow, I can think of lots of scenarios surrounding the departure of Kirke and Bailey after the end of last season, but giving into fan pressure! McDermott and Gary, giving into fan pressure, really? I had thought the major reasons were the need to make room for new blood and to give up and coming squad members a decent run. Whilst I don't think either of those options has been fully exploited, I still think that replacing an ageing pack was the primary driver. Why do you think it was about Fan Pressure?

Well all very well in hindsight but Yates came with promise and then had a long term serious injury. So for the moment he is a fringe member of the squad and we are where we are. Had you brought them on after 30 minutes it is most unlikely that we would have got back to parity by half time particularly as we scored twice after 30 minutes and it was Cuthbo who scored his hallmark try on 39 minutes on the back of momentum and position that our 'tired' forwards had created during this spell!!!

Indeed most other coaches (including Mac) do rotate their starting props around the 30 minute mark given they have reliable reserves to make the interchange. Change the circumstances and most coaches change their plans.

But as you know better I would like to know how you would have planned to make up the 12 points that we not have scored in the period when you would have brought on the subs.

Biggest load of sh## i've read on here so GH/BM released 2 players because of fan pressure?
Pmsl they were released because in IK's case he wasn't good enough simple fact and in RB's case i'm pretty certain his p!$$ poor self discipline played a key role in that call being made and i'm sure his on field inconsistency played a part.
The fact GH failed to get the recruitment right is a different point their time at Leeds was up and in RB's case discipline wise he was lucky it lasted as long as it did.

No win is a given and that's not what i said either smart @r$e!
In terms of selection Sinfield should start at 13 or 6 simple he's not as good as a sub never has been i would have started him at 13.
Walters and Yates should have been introduced earlier we were flagging after 10 minutes which goes back to his selection/game time management last week after our CEO in all his wisdom decided we wouldn't get the fixture switched.
In terms of the game itself how did Cas react when had them pinned in their own 20/30?
Simple RL kick early they also maintained their shape we didn't yes individual mistakes are just that individual but the Coach gives them the game plan and is in full control of the bench and rotations.
Mcguire and Burrow played like strangers so whilst that unravels why move Sinfield to 9?
You make a big point about winning/losing together but your hero Mc.D is never at fault mate and the excuses flow when his selections/tactics and bench management are questioned.

I love this forum.

Pointing out a run of poor performances and results, and giving an opinion on some of the reasons behind it that need to be addressed is "doom mongering".

All hail the opinions of the eternal optimist forum overlords.

Like I pointed out, whilst Kirke wasn't liked by fans and most didn't want him the 17....the coach did want him in his 17 and picked him there most weeks. Do you honestly think McDermott would rather have Yates or Kirke right now? Not what you think of Kirke, what the coach thought of Kirke?

Again if Bailey's discipline was the reason for his departure and was lined up for several months, why only do it post season without a guaranteed forward lined-up to replace him? Again why was he picked and played many minutes in the cup wins and given the nod to start the league games after if they'd decided to wash their hands of him? Why not announce it would be his final season before the end of the season and let him have the "his final game at Headingley" moment like most departing players get with the final league game of the season when they do their little stay behind on the pitch to thank fans?

When was the last time we saw a few players announced as departing AFTER the season ended? 2010 when the likes of Diskin and Donald left and McClennen decided not to stay and that because a shake-up was needed because of our 4th place finish and hammering in the cup final.

Does anybody truely believe if we'd have gone on to complete a GF/CC double last year with the likes of Bailey and Kirke on the bench that GH isn't running around Leeds telling everybody he was right and this is THE greatest Leeds squad ever for doing the double? Do you honestly think two weeks later he's showing them two the door given his reputation for loyalty to those that have been part of the success here?

It was completely reactionary to the playoff defeat. He said mid-2012 when we were struggling that he might get rid of some players at the end of the season.....low and behold we win the GF again and nobody leaves.

GH will have know it was going to be a tough sell to sell season tickets this year with the same squad with only Cuthbertson added to it. Given how late it was and all players are pretty much signed up for 2015 by the time of the playoffs it meant he really couldn't sign anybody. His only other option was to release some of those guys people have wanted rid of for a while now and make promises in the pre-season about the young guys stepping up into those spots which again fans have been calling for for a while now.

Problem is he has a coach who isn't keen on playing young forwards. So why would you get rid of two guys he did pick and give minutes to and leave him with guys he won't feel comfortable putting on the park? Like I said before, who do you reckon McDermott would've preferred on the bench on Thursday? Bailey & Kirke or Yates and Walters? Think it's obvious it'd be the former, so it certainly wasn't departures with the coach in mind.

It's funny how no one has named anybody in particular as a "doom monger" yet certain posters rush forward in aggreevance of the term being banded about, especially when they've happily thrown around terms like rose-tinted and hero-worshipers for people who have a different view to them.

I get tired of telling Printer this, but whether he wants to clutch at his straws or not, McDermott wanted Bailey out of the club at Easter last year. He was Forced, yes Forced, by the CEO to let Bailey see out his testimonial year.

That is quite a common known fact, that people at the club are not shy of talking about

Whether is Printer is correct on Kirke is open to debate, but I am pretty certain it had to do with security on his contract.