I concur.

BUT I bet Singleton and Robbie Ward still felt valued members of the squad (probably imminently at another club mind)

That was Leeds' 627th game of the SL Era where four substitutes are permitted on the bench - total excludes the 1996 Challenge Cup which were the final games with only two. After a quick scan through the spreadsheet last night's game appears to be the only time any Leeds coach has seen fit to leave 50% of them unused in any single game.

Peacock, great player though he undoubtedly is, was at fault from marker for the St Helens opening try on 62 minutes. Despite being a man down when the points eventually came, they came through the middle. Would fresh bodies have made a difference ..... who knows.

down to 12 for a long time, players running on empty. whichever way you look at it, its bloody odd to only use 2 replacements

If a Coach doesn't "trust" his subs why select them?
Or are you implying the Coach thought we would be that far in front it wouldn't matter how they would have to defend?
Sorry JC that's ridiculous as for comparisons with Singleton and Kirke did you miss the Wire away game or has Kirke never missed a tackle?

When BMD was asked the same question in an interview after the game, he appeared stunned, and asked the reporter what did he actually mean! His eventual answer was less than convincing...."Delaney is a machine....JJB is a machine.....Ablett is a machine....no need to replace them!"

Perhaps Garry will invite him over for Sunday lunch, and gently explain why the Rules allow 4 subs in the first place, and the benefits of using them, when on field situations require a small deviation from the pre planned strategies.

That said, the team were excellent up to the 60 minute mark, and I saw nothing in the Saints performance that will cause us any problems in the Play Offs.

Your view is based on an assumption there is some rule that you have to use all your subs or that like sheep you follow what others do. If you can acknowledge for one minute that subs can be used just to give your first choices a very short breather then perhaps you can also consider that subs can also be used just as cover if you have first choices that are capable of long minutes and can be rotated to give those same short breaks.

IMO had Moon not been sent off Mac would have used all his subs. However the situation changed and gaining a lead yet having a man short meant he needed his best and most reliable defenders on the field for the most time. Aiton had a fine game and made 46 tackles so to replace him with young Robbie was a big risk. Similarly with a lead to defend against a big pack Singleton is a bit lightweight and still has a bit to learn on defense. So IMO it was quite reasonable to use his interchanges to rotate his first choices. As he said after the match JJB, Ablett, Delaney & Bailey don't need much rest and of course neither does JP.

If you were to have used all the subs, at what point would you have used them? Had it been earlier it could well have cost our lead earlier as our first choices were doing a remarkable job. Had you used them late in the game the same applies.

IMO apart from the obvious of having a man down, the game actually swung on several errors that lost us possession, added to some dodgy decisions by the officials and compounded by a much better 2nd half performance from the Saints. Even with all this had Sinfield taken a drop goal opportunity we could have come out with a point.

Incomprehensible to you perhaps. And you may also have a picture of him on your wall that you stick pins in!

Well the real answer isn't one that should be said out loud to a press conference, which would basically be....

"Don't trust Singleton and R.Ward defensively enough in a 12 man defence"

Are you saying Singleton would have made the tackle on McCarthy-Scarsbrook that JP missed for their second try? As Sky's pundits pointed out in the PTB before their 2nd try Hardaker called Achurch to the other side leaving JP's side exposed. Roby spotted this and switched play back to where the gap had appeared. Hardaker made the same error in a recent game which pulled Bailey away leaving a gap for a try under the sticks.

The game changers were not caused by fatigue IMO but by lost possession from players who would not have been substituted - Briscoe, Watkins, Sutcliffe, Hardaker and JJB (who had a rest) add in some bad decisions from the officials and better tactics from Saints. But the real reason was it was 12 against 13 for much of the match.

My point of view is valid and no more ridiculous than your assumption that Singleton and R Ward would have made a difference.

So in your opinion JC fatigue played no part in that defeat when we played with 12 men for so long?
The extra work EVERY player had to put in closing the gaps ,chasing back etc had no effect whatsoever?
Disagree I can see the pov re-Ward(although don't agree with it) Aiton was superb but not Singleton that pack last night had more than one player blowing out of his arris at different points especially in 2nd half.
Would that have changed the end result? Well we will never know and I applaud the efforts of all involved but that was imo a mistake in team management.
Printer-If he doesn't trust the young lads completely then he shouldn't pick them imo they have to learn and be given time to learn.

Making a difference can be measured in different ways i.e would they getting on the field had a positive/negative effect from their efforts or for the players they replaced by giving them a breather and coming back fresher for the final 20?
Like I said I can see why R.Ward didn't get on but not Singleton even for 10 minutes.