This absolutely spot on - when the interviewed Todd Carney he said Glen Stewart was coaching the defence at Catalan, rumour has it that Sinfield coached the attack at Leeds. Leeds have no set attacking plays especially in their opponents 20 you really do wonder what McDermott does with them every day in training.

I am not saying we should have Michael Maguire type who just wants robots to play like an American football team - they are terrible to watch, he will gone by the end of the year but we need a change up in the coaching department a different philosophy, ethos and most of all ability

If a lack of attacking structure can produce scores of 38-34 and entertainment to match then I think most fans will say bring it on. The sooner we ditch the boring and predictable play along with the robotic negative interchanges the better.

That works ok against a defence as poor as Saints won't work against the likes of Wigan and Warrington

The same unstructured, entertaining style that was much applauded throughout the SL and worked pretty well last season and was most successful against all comers I seem to recall when we won the treble. The beauty of playing this style is that it unlocks "structured" defenses which have no answer. This in addition to the huge entertainment value are very good reasons to encourage this style which takes us back to the handling roots that made rugby so special.

What do you prefer? Boring over structured repetitive set moves all based on some form of obstruction run by gym freaks who can only manage 15 minute spells? It is this over coached sort of style that has led to a loss of individual rugby skills almost to the extinction of the side step or body swerve in the modern game.

Agreed. I'm glad you put 'almost' though - there are a handful showing real flair. I can't have been the only one to enjoy Ash Handleys scissor kick when he scored his try? Even my wife knew that was special.

Yes Handley's try was special, although some out there are suggesting it was all down to poor defense! Fages and Lomax showed some class too and Golding has elusive balanced running skills that will take him to the top.

There has to be some structure, even last year we had a structure, which included several set plays. The best teams in our sport have some set patterns but can either adjust this patterns to suit particular situation or play completely of the cuff. At the moment, we seem to be lacking any form of structure, particularly in the opposition's 20m zone, and we will not progress until we do.

In relation to the entertainment value, I've seen and forgotten plenty of high scoring crap games like Friday's fair. The games you remember are the close, hard fought contests that keep your attention to the final hooter. The last three games of the 2015 season are perfect examples.

Exactly!

Handley's hitch-kick was a real throwback, must have been watching some old footage of Lewis Jones.

Having questioned his bottle at times last week was pleased to see a much more consistent effort from Golding this. Dropped kick aside looked up for it. Lilley recovered from a really poor start - could and probably should have been adjudged to have conceded the disallowed score on the line putting Leeds three scores behind and seemingly on the way to an absolute tonking. Place kicked well again which is going to give McDermott a dilemma if and when McGuire retakes the scrum-half role but I expect we'll see McGuire back to stand-off and Sutcliffe shelved for a spell.

according to jjb last year the squad finally got to grips with macd's structures , wasn't sinfields structures or the rise of aiton and cuthbertson or the return of stevie ward . presumably they've all been forgotten

I agree Ronzy that there has to be a basis of structure but League has become too predicable because of too much structure which IMO has suppressed individual flair in favour of physical monotany based on a form of obstruction. One of the reasons for the decline in appeal of SL. Would you agree that we were the best team last year yet had the least structure?

Yes we have looked to have little structure in most of our games this year but equally we have looked to have little ability too with a succession of individual errors and poor decisions. So logically if you argue we have no structure you also have to say we have no ability in equal measure.

Therefore I suggest it is ridiculous to summise that our coach, who got the balance so right last year and also in previous years, has somehow decided this year to throw out all structure for some unknown reason and is therefore to blame for our current lowly position.

Would you agree that a far more likely reason is simply that we lost our two most influential players and didn't replace then well enough. And that this was further compounded by long term injuries to key players including our new captain and main replacement playmaker. Throw in a few new recruits and youngsters with only half the other senior squad to choose from and it is no wonder the side looks to have no structure. What was the final blow was the terrible form of senior players such as Watkins. Hardaker and Hall who failed to show any form or responsibility.

If players make mistakes on the field it does't mean they lack skills or that if they show little structure in matches that they are not coached to play with structure.

With regard to the Saints match I am sorry that you regarded the attacking play as crap. Much of it IMO was high quality attacking play with some excellent handling and offloading to create space and scores.

There have been more positive signs in the last couple of games that perhaps we are turning the corner.

Only took 3 years then.

I wasn't aware that I had pointed the finger at McDermott but, like the players, he has to shoulder some of the responsibility for what goes on within the field of play.

If you want my honest opinion,I believe the problems are more routed in confidence than application and that Mcdermott doesn't seem to have the skills to turn that particular issue around.

I didn't say the attacking play was crap, I said the game was crap, mainly because 50% of the endeavour (the defensive side of the game) was well below par. I would also argue, as others have already, that some of the attacking play was only successful and any form of spectacle because the defensive intensity was so low.

Plenty of positives from individuals & some of our link up play in attack was excellent but imo collectively we are still far too weak defensively.
Its all well & good enjoying open attacking RL but it'd be much more enjoyable if we could defend & by that i mean basic tackling & controlling the ptb.
Lost count how many times we have 2/3 players all over the place at the ptb its getting to be a real weakness.
Once again i'll question Achurch's selection & Delaneys both p!$$ poor management imo Baldwinson deserves a chance & iv no u19's are deemed ready use the loan market.
Wednesdays interview with Delaney said it all he'll always out his hand up to play even injured thats where we need stronger management if he needs 4wks to recover or 3mths use that time ffs.

All the best games I have ever seen have been won by scores lower than 30.
There are lots of examples, but the two league games against Wigan in '98 were rediculously good games.

Sure, shootouts have their place , Leeds did score some very good tries on Friday - but watching guys walk through f*** awful defence again and again is not entertaining, it's frustrating. No point in scoring a great try to then concede a pathetic one.