I feel sorry for the faithful that made the long haul to the South of France. Then again they escaped the West Yorkshire Weather and have an evening in a French bar or eatery to look forward to



Massively disappointed by that performance, after "the cup hangover" mare against the Saints, I thought they would go all out to give a good account of themselves this week. It was never going to be easy over in the South of France and I expected that we might get shaded out, but that was one of the worst Rhinos performances I have seen in a good while.

Hudds and Cas will be fancying their chances against us after that.

Not just that though. A real lack of shape and structure in attack, even once Sinfield went back into the halves.

Not sure where Achurch was supposed to be playing, spent half his time hiding out on the wing rather than offering himself as a runner. Ablett got dragged into the middle of the field much too often looking for work rather than holding his width. There were times when you could have thrown a blanket over most of the team, and nobody seemed to have a loud enough voice to get people where they needed to be.

Good to see Gilder making RL Meltdown. https://twitter.com/RLMeltdown/status/6 ... 8861438976

Good to see Gilder making RL Meltdown. https://twitter.com/RLMeltdown/status/6 ... 8861438976

The lack of width has been obvious the last couple of weeks. Not having Watkins available really reduces our pace and threat in the 3/4s, but all not having a 2nd half who can bring them into the game has also been evident. Hopefully, we can work out the structural kinks in training by just playing Lilley, Sinfield or Burrow at 9 and go with 2 halves. We were a lot more threatening in the 2nd half with the extra pivot, but we weren't right mentally to ever have a real chance to make a come back.

Well that was horrible.

I'm not sure which is the biggest puzzle, our performance or theirs: we looked just like the team with nothing to play for and they looked like the cocky league leaders. [iC'est bizarre...[/i

They don't need to be at the airport 3 hours beforehand. My brother and his family recently flew to Australia, they only had to be at the airport 90 mins before departure.

With all the travelling it's probably not much longer than the bus trip to London or Crusaders used to be.

It isn't amateurish. It's done in full consultation with the conditioners, physios and players. The conditioners are happy with it, they get better training in the day before.
The physios are happy, they get them straight into rehab the next morning.
The players are happy, they get to sleep in their own beds.

If it was the long travelling that caused our lack of energy and intensity on the pitch how come it didn't happen earlier in the year when we did the same thing (we've done it for a couple of years)? And what caused a similar lack of energy and intensity in our game v Saints last week?

Even if it wasn't the right thing to do, it most certainly isn't amateurish.

Haven't we done this for a few years now? Our record over there's pretty good. Or perhaps was.

No. We normally charter our own flight as a club. This was just a normal flight as normal passengers, which means they will have been there early to ensure all players and all bags are checked in properly. But yes, we normally do same day.

If this is going to happen as a result of all the effort going into the Challenge Cup this year and last,then maybe we are better out of it next season. There is more prestige in winning the Grand Final as it shows in most instances how good a team has been over the season and not just hitting a purple patch for a few games to win the Challenge Cup.
Lets just hope its not a carbon copy of last year,which at the moment it appears to be.

Judging by JP's photo on Twitter, it was a charter plane with only Rhinos players & staff on it

Definitely looked a charter, would say it would be nowhere near as comfortable as a typical Jet2 737, and probably 10/20 minutes slower too, especially important when every minute matters.

Travel timeline is well set out from the official club twitter feed, looks a tiny plane too.

If this was a "week off" then why not rest more players and let the second string make a play for the remaining games, why risk injury to the rather thin squad we have if we weren't going all out to win?

If we were then shame on the players for getting tonked.

Why should they change their plans after winning their last four games in Perpignan doing exactly the same?

It was a chartered plane by the RFL for the club! Hope that helps you look for a reason for the defeat! Club went to the same hotel to rest up/massage etc as they always do! Only difference was it was a 50 seater rather than a jet2 150 seater

I wasn't looking for a reason, otherwise I would have said it. We lost because we were lazy and poor, not because of a plane. I also don't accept McDermotts comments after, there was no pride from some of the players.

It is not just the loss of Aiton that has cost us the all important momentum, but losing Burrow, Watkins and now Keinhorst has lost the balance in the side that was so important to the style we were playing.

The tactic, as you put it, of playing with only one half back was not a chosen one but forced by the injury to Burrow who has been very effective from the bench. Remember we have already lost Sutcliffe so our key half back/hooker options have been reduced to zero. Add to this the loss of Watkins and his cover Keinhorst and we are left with Ablett's right centre limitations being fully exposed.

Without JJB for the key matches was always going to prove costly although Keinhorst made a good attempt as a replacement but now he too has fallen for our injury jinx and Walters and Achurch have not stepped up to the mark. So Mac has a real dilemma to fill the crucial 9 and 7/6 positions. Much will depend on Burrow's fitness as he is the only other player with the experience and ability to play in either position.

Without Burrow and Watkins will be too great a handicap I fear with all the other semi finalists in better shape fitness wise.

The tactic of playing one half back was not forced on McDermott he chose to play that way - if Ward is not suitable there is one place to look, the coaching team. If they haven't been able in a year to get him to a suitable standard then they need to look at themselves.

If anything costs McDermott it will be two things: lack of depth in the squad and an over reliance on the older players/reluctance to use youngsters. Handley showed when given a run they can perform.

Handley could be the key....as I said elsewhere he [uHAS[/u proven his abilities at the highest level (and was unfortunate to be 'dropped'). If a straight hooker swap of either R.Ward (or Lilley - who looked okay there and certainly sped things up around the ruck) is not trusted for the run in (and it is a valid question as to why that is so) then maybe keep Sinfield at dummy half; bring the proven Handley into the threequarters and try Moon at SO. I know you don't tend to think much of the notion of Moon at SO, but for sure the ploy of Sinfield named at SO and playing dummy half is now fooling nobody and has reached its sell by date. The last tackle options have been pish poor and badly executed when relying soley on McGuire.

Or even just try Moon at hooker vs Cas, see how that goes. Got good hands, could run from dummy half, strong in defence.

Come on Sal. Aiton was first choice hooker with Burrow covering that and scrum half. We lose Sutcliffe and then Aiton to season ending injuries. So when Burrow also gets injured together with Watkins the squad is really getting stretched on top of JJB for the season. Few sides will have a ready made SL standard 3rd choice hooker to call upon.

R Ward is not ready for SL just yet and to play him when he is not ready in high pressure crucial end of season matches is not the way to look after a youngster. Handley performed well in a side that was playing well and one that was not shorn of so many experience players and yet he made a fair number of mistakes in matches that had less pressure. In any case he was deemed as ready to step up, young Ward is not.

If Burrow is not fit I would play Golding at 7 or 6. But the pack has got to step up and Ablett should return to the pack.

So you deem Ward who is a hooker, not ready to play yet you propose playing Golding who does not play 6 or 7 in the Academy in one of those key positions?
You may be right but that is a major gamble & could be perceived as being somewhat bizarre.

Firstly it is the coaches who deem Ward not ready yet. What little I have seen of him gives me no reason to disagree with the coaches. I am not sure that we need an inexperienced hooker to play just a few minutes from the bench unless you think he is capable of starting to allow Sinfield to revert to standoff? So in the absence of a suitable 9, assuming Burrow is still not fit, then the only alternative to playing Mags on his own at halfback is to risk Lilley or Golding. I would prefer Golding.

Secondly the heavy workload a hooker has to do is quite different to a half back so IMO the risk of throwing in a novice at 9 is far greater than in one of the halves.

Thirdly Golding learnt his rugby as a scrum half and has not only been deemed ready for some first team experience but has acquitted himself very well in difficult circumstances recently and has shown the mental toughness that is needed. So it is not because he is not good enough to play 6 or 7 in the academy but rather he has the extra skill to play f/b too.

Fourthly if Mags undertakes the major role he will have a junior assistant with pace, good hands and feet as a link. Whereas R Ward would be on his own at acting halfback.

Not an ideal scenario but we need to score more points than Cas so I would go with the extra attacker.

It has been suggested that Moon play at 6 but although I am sure he would aquit himself well this would leave a major problem at centre especially if Watkins does' make it. We need our first choice backs in their usual positions to have a chance of regaining our free flowing match winning style. With that in mind if no Watkins then I would bring in Handley on the wing and Briscoe to centre and move Ablett back into the pack.

If this is too bizarre for you what are your suggestions?

I think that Lilley getting picked yesterday (and giving a fairly reasonable performance in the circumstances) I can't see Golding suddenly getting in ahead of him now.

I think McDermott obviously wasn't keen on starting Burrow at hooker judging from his substitute selection vs Wigan and HKR. However if/when Burrow returns I think he will now just go back to that. It had its flaws but we've also won a GF, CC and WCC with him starting there so we know we can still be successful with that selection.

You could well be right and Lilley looks a good prospect but I would go with Golding for this one.

If Burrow is fit then I agree he should start at 9. Sinfield is now not physically up to an 80 minute 9 and I would sooner see him go out dictating play than running himself into the ground at 9.

I don think their's anything wrong with Sinfield's performances at hooker. If we named him there and had Sutcliffe still available to play in the halves I think we'd ok.