We play week in week out we win 3 or 4 on the bounce playing at the top our game, what's different? If it was super league we would be doing it so why treat it any different, we should carry momentum into the cc final,

Momentum often brings injuries, which usually causes the momentum to stall.
Going by your logic it wouldn't ever be necessary to rest a player and players wouldn't pick up injuries.

Don't blame McDermott - that side should have beaten London - take Moon out that is the 3/4 line that will play next week. 30-8 up with 30 minutes to go should have been enough. This time the players need to look in the mirror!!

The players are only playing once a week - are we seriously suggesting the players are not fit enough to play once a week?

Good job these guys don't play in the NRL - one in three games in SL are a coasting exercise - are we seriously suggesting the likes of Sinfield - who has just had two games off - needs resting, same can be said of Moon, Burrow who has had 10 weeks off?

Well we played 12 first teamers so that blows your logic out of the water.

Not sure if you have noticed this but Rugby league is a physical sport where the bodies get bashed both in attack and defense.

Who actually cares?

Its all about next week, today was just a weekend to get out of the way.

If you care about today then you don't understand our priorities as a club and thiers as a group of players.

As a relative newcomer / outsider to the game a part of me assumes / expects that a professional rugby league player should be able to play a professional game of rugby league once a week, as the professional body determines is a fair frequency to play. Similarly, professional footballers should be able to play two professional games a week, as that is their profession that they have signed up for. A professional baseball player is scheduled to play 162 games a season across 180 days and although very few play all games (if any) the outfielders and big hitters play a decent amount of them.

I understand that I have no idea what it feels like to play an 80 minute game of rugby league and that for some pros it takes them a week to recover, but then no-one has forced them to be pro rugby league players. To some degree they have signed up for it - so long as they (or their manager) are not putting them at physical risk - ie. playing someone too soon after their last game as they have not recovered from the last - is it unreasonable to expect them to play once a week?

I'm not sure what some of you do for jobs, but presumably you have contracts. Your boss doesn't pull you out of business meetings because you had a big business meeting the week before, or you don't sit out fixing a car one time as you tired from fixing the last two cars that came in - you are there to fix cars so if there are cars to be fixed you and your colleagues fix them. It is part of what you signed up to do.

Anyway, that is my rant over for now.

the 1000 people who paid hard earned money to travel for 3 hours to watch that shower capitulate?

We should've played more academy players... Wait, oh.

Are you for a real?

Or are you of the opinion that leeds, should they win next week just opt out of playing the rest of the season, afterall next week is all that matters.

Some weeks they're fit enough, others not. It's not about fitness in the sense as we usually think of it, as in can they run enough etc. Its the physical toll a game takes on the players body. That toll gets greater and greater each season as teams improve and sports science/conditioners/modern coaching gets players to play faster, harder and smarter.

Taking a Friday to Friday game schedule, the players are usually in recovery training up until Wednesday. Obviously that's an average, some weeks they can do more earlier in the week, some weeks less. And obviously some players recover quicker than others and some players have higher game workloads than others. It's actually a coaching objective/guidance for Peacock to reduce his game workload.

The players, especially the forwards, take huge stresses on their bodies during games. In the Wire game at home this year Peacock took 30 impacts each equivalent to a 30 mph car crash. And that wasn't an unheard of figure.
Michael Monaghan is retiring because of too many blows to the head, another aspect to the fitness issue too.

Is it any wonder some need resting after a tough game? Especially those in their 30's?
I'm sure some of them could have played, but surely we want them in as good a physical condition for Wembley as possible?

As for the NRL, it's not an equal comparison as they have bigger squads, a reserves comp, fewer games and bye weeks plus it's a different style of play. And there haven't been many games this season in which Leeds could cruise. As I said on another thread not long ago, there are roughly just as many blowout scorelines in the NRL as in SL.

Add in the cumulative effect of several seasons of large amounts of games, the cumulative effect of games within a season, minor injuries not given chance to recover from and I'm not suprised we have times in the season where 8/9/10 players are injured.

As I said, I'm sure some could have played today, but do we want them to or do they benefit more from a week off and be in much, much better physical condition than they would have been for the final.

Some people see it as disrespecting SL to play a weakened team in that game, well you could also see it as disrespecting the Cup to play a strong team in the London game.

Refund?

People who knew enough about McDermott's Leeds would have taken London at 15-2 and more than paid for their Wembley weekend. You can't say they're not good to you.