I would say Second Row is a bigger issue than the pack this year, Gannon needs to be starting instead of Bentley and I would put Cooper Jenkins in instead of McDonnel who I thought was really poor on Saturday

Whilst Saturday does not define the season. It was very disappointing after Arthur had spoken about making Headingley a fortress and getting off to a good start to get the fans back on side and some momentum in the team. Handley and Newman racing out of the defensive line on at leas5 5-6 occasions probably cost us as it gave them the field position to score the tries. I don't see Handley as a centre but suspect Arthur will stick with him. Newman never looks like he'll make a break from a good line, power or speed. His instinct is always to cut back inside. He looks a shadow of his former self. I thought Connor was very slow in bringing the ball back from kicks and possibly played a part in us starting sets on the backfoot. I also thought Hall and Lumb were slow in getting back at times to be an option for Connor to pass to from the kicks. Frawley is just not good enough. His kicking is pathetic. A 10 year old could put up a more dangerous bomb than him. He doesn't appear a loud voice either. I would definitely be playing Sinfield ahead of him. Ackers is possibly the most disappointing. I swear when he played for Salford, he would make 2-3 breaks a game from scooting from dummy half, however, I can barely remember him making a clean break for us. He seems slow and seems to go the wrong way quite often. If that's the level of his performance this season then he will need releasing. Oledzki for me just needs to be tougher and nastier, a bit like Holroyd. The size of him, he should be causing chaos. Bentley offers zero in attack. Gannon I'm hoping might be the player we need. McDonnell was ineffective cutting back inside. It was very much a typical Leeds performance of the last few years. They seem to raise their games for the tougher matches and lower themselves for the so called lesser sides. I think there is a mentality issue. The fact we got that performance after an Arthur pre-season is concerning. Lots of concerns for me and I suspect based on that match, we will continue to be inconsistent. That said, it would not surprise me if this team beat Saints away in the CC. We seem so hit and miss.

Not a single Leeds forward ran 100M with the ball. Our 4 props on the day took 41 drives between them for a total of 270M an average gain of 6M. This is why we lost, they don't work anything like hard enough with the ball. Everything else comes from the platform your front row sets (or doesn't). 3 of the Wakey starting pack ran more than 100M or more. Fix this and we will be OK, don't and it will be a long old season. Again.

[quote="batleyrhino":uwgl0hib]Not a single Leeds forward ran 100M with the ball. Our 4 props on the day took 41 drives between them for a total of 270M an average gain of 6M. This is why we lost, they don't work anything like hard enough with the ball. Everything else comes from the platform your front row sets (or doesn't). 3 of the Wakey starting pack ran more than 100M or more. Fix this and we will be OK, don't and it will be a long old season. Again.[/quote:uwgl0hib] Looking at the stats on the super league page, Wakefields props made 210 metres, so 60 metres less than ours, and that's with Mik going down with HIA

The Wakey Pack made more metres than the Leeds pack, Wakey starting pack 432M, Leeds starting pack 341M. Almost 100M more.

[quote="batleyrhino":2deqpck9]The Wakey Pack made more metres than the Leeds pack, Wakey starting pack 432M, Leeds starting pack 341M. Almost 100M more.[/quote:2deqpck9] Yes, but you said that our props were the reason we lost, when they actually outgained the Wakefield props.

[quote="Neruda":754sygyc]Yes, but you said that our props were the reason we lost, when they actually outgained the Wakefield props.[/quote:754sygyc] As I stated it was our backrowers that were ineffective not the props.

[quote="christopher":2x4xv7i6]Full stats here, not sure how it shows how weak our pack was? https://www.superleague.co.uk/match-centre/report/43416 We had 27 play the balls in the opposition half versus 19 (a rarity last year) Made 38 tackle busts compared to 13 for Wakefield Wakefield had 38 missed tackles compared to our 13. If were going of selected stats that would show our issue was a total lack of attacking threat not being dominated in the pack.[/quote:2x4xv7i6] It showed not a single forward in a Leeds shirt made 100m and Wakefield’s did. Their pack out gunned us. Weak.

[quote="christopher":2x4xv7i6]Full stats here, not sure how it shows how weak our pack was? https://www.superleague.co.uk/match-centre/report/43416 We had 27 play the balls in the opposition half versus 19 (a rarity last year) Made 38 tackle busts compared to 13 for Wakefield Wakefield had 38 missed tackles compared to our 13. If were going of selected stats that would show our issue was a total lack of attacking threat not being dominated in the pack.[/quote:2x4xv7i6] It showed not a single forward in a Leeds shirt made 100m and Wakefield’s did. Their pack out gunned us. Weak.

Sitting behind the sticks, it was clear to see that our three outside defensive players intentionally ran diagonally inwards when attempting to press the Wakey attack. This was why we were nearly always leaving overlaps on either wing. It looked as if this was an instruction rather than individual decisions. If we can address this issue then we would reduce the attack of the opposition considerably.

[quote="Trebor1":oa0v7dzx]It showed not a single forward in a Leeds shirt made 100m and Wakefield’s did. Their pack out gunned us. Weak.[/quote:oa0v7dzx] Their pack did but it wasn’t because of our props Our second rows were shocking. As was our edge defence, the gap to let Truman through was amateurish.

[quote="Rhino Rock":shy6ykgb]Sitting behind the sticks, it was clear to see that our three outside defensive players intentionally ran diagonally inwards when attempting to press the Wakey attack. This was why we were nearly always leaving overlaps on either wing. It looked as if this was an instruction rather than individual decisions. If we can address this issue then we would reduce the attack of the opposition considerably.[/quote:shy6ykgb] They did actually address this in the second half, what they didn’t address was the terrible attacking shape and structure.

After 20 minutes it felt like a pin being stuck into a balloon of optimism. To me, we are best the "off the field" club in Super League, as the attendance proves, but "on the field" we are 8th or 9th. How we can build up to a crescendo in pre-season and produce that is beyond disappointing. BA is saying all the right things, but Black and White it made not a jot of difference to the performance. Early days indeed, but our coach did not get a tune out of his players on Saturday. Let's hope the players start to translate the message against Salford and I mean the real Salford not the reserves!!

Even if our forwards get on top , which will not happen very often , our backs are not very good anyway . A full back who has a mistake in him any moment , a scrum half who is garbage , one of the best wingers in Super League pretending he is a centre , the most over rated centre in Super League who rarely has a good game , a thirty seven year old playing on the wrong wing.

I've taken a couple of days before posting anything mainly because I was so totally dejected by our performance. We all have our personal scapegoats (Ackers and the two first choice second rows lead the pack for me) but the truth is that collectively we were very poor. All the usual failings were on show from the first set of the game, and the atmosphere in the ground reflected that as the minutes dragged by. First game of the season, I know, but felt like every game of the last years. We cannot afford lose to Salford.

I do worry a bit that under Arthur we are in danger of looking like a poor man's version of the classic Bulls team - plan A is to dominate physically, and when that's not working team cohesion breaks down and it is every man for himself trying to win the game (guess what, we did the same plan B under Rohan). We've seemingly become quite conservative in attack all of a sudden. Whereas 'Rohanball' expected every player to have the combined handling skills of Lauitiiti, Crooks and Cleary, it's like Arthur wants the players to run through walls and tackle heroically for 80 minutes like Peacock, JJB and Sinfield combined. Still on the fence with Arthur, but I have to admit I was hoping to see a bit more for his much vaunted no-nonsense coaching and emphasis on the game being won on the advantage line... No point getting too worked up one game in though. Some slightly worrying stats re: the pack. I expected a lot more from the forwards given that we sacrificed two quota spots to bring in a couple of Aussie props. It is early days with Palasia, but Jenkins isn't even picked - not sure that's the best use of a quota spot unless it is part of a rotation, or is this concussion related? I'd be tempted to try Jenkins in the second row if Bentley and McDonnell don't improve. Jake Connor was a massive disappointment at full-back. He has a lackadaisical running style slightly reminiscent of Iestyn Harris with the ball in hand, but in defence it isn't a good look. If we stick him in the halves, presumably he'll need time to gel with Croft, and some will complain than he's blocking Sinfield. He'd be a better selection on the bench than unused Edgell, that's for sure.

Arthur’s stubbornness over Handley as a centre is a worry for me. Connor played his best trophy winning stuff at Hull as a 4 but needs Miller to come back which is weeks away. The new Aussie bloke has a lot on riding on him.

I'd rather Arthur makes changes early than wait and see if things improve. Firstly to give some players a kick up the arris and to try to fix some glaring issues, but more importantly to not let things slide into another wasted year. We've got limited reserves available, but two of them are quota players who ought to be in the 17 every week if they are worth anything. Behind them the squad is already looking thin - TNW and maybe O'Connor for next week, Sinfield probably not fit.

Shame Sinfield is out for a few weeks as I would have him straight in for Frawley. I'd be moving Handley to winger this week but suspect Arthur will stick with him at centre.

[quote="christopher":27v1x8eg]Their pack did but it wasn’t because of our props Our second rows were shocking. As was our edge defence, the gap to let Truman through was amateurish.[/quote:27v1x8eg] Never said it was our Props Chris. I said it showed our pack was weak.

[quote="ArthurClues":2j4pvdee]I've taken a couple of days before posting anything mainly because I was so totally dejected by our performance. We all have our personal scapegoats (Ackers and the two first choice second rows lead the pack for me) but the truth is that collectively we were very poor. All the usual failings were on show from the first set of the game, and the atmosphere in the ground reflected that as the minutes dragged by. First game of the season, I know, but felt like every game of the last years. We cannot afford lose to Salford.[/quote:2j4pvdee] Yeah agree. I think we're all feeling very fatigued by recent years same old rubbish being served up. Bitterly disappointing

Truly awful watch. All the noise about a hard pre-season and players looking fit and strong. We were totally gassed and looked unfit as a team. The backs were dreadful. Handley and Lumb were run ragged down that edge. Handley is not a centre in a million years. I've said before, Newman is not the player he was after the injuries. And Hall, club and sport legend though he is, looks like a 37 year old playing elite sport. Frawley is just terrible. We must bring ECW into the centre and put Handley where he belongs. And I would play Connor at 7 instead of Frawley. But I fear that BA will be too stubborn to do either of those things. I've also been very disappointed with Ackers since he signed. O'Connor is a better starting 9. The start of another long, old season I fear..... Only positives were that the defensive line speed is noticeably better under BA. And the return of Holroyd and Gannon. Other than that, depressingly awful.

[quote="rugbyleague88":2dilnn2c]Shame Sinfield is out for a few weeks as I would have him straight in for Frawley. I'd be moving Handley to winger this week but suspect Arthur will stick with him at centre.[/quote:2dilnn2c] I would move Handley to full back, put Conner at . Conners running the ball back with that little shimmy, he doesn’t fool anyone. He just gets hammered . Least Handley has some pace to run wide of the defence. Not certain once again with Newman, he really needs to improve his game. Although we never seem to put him through any gap or space. Frawley is poor, very rarely breaks the defensive line. At the moment having viewed the majority of the first round games excluding Salford, we look to be the poorest team. Six or seven games in will be appraisal time, pressure on Arthur. Up to him to sort things out, after all that’s what he is paid top money for.

[quote="Trebor1":292h2dxj]Never said it was our Props Chris. I said it showed our pack was weak.[/quote:292h2dxj] I know, I was just making the point as others had said it was the props

[quote="Simmo71":2cehhgr2]Truly awful watch. All the noise about a hard pre-season and players looking fit and strong. We were totally gassed and looked unfit as a team. The backs were dreadful. Handley and Lumb were run ragged down that edge. Handley is not a centre in a million years. I've said before, Newman is not the player he was after the injuries. And Hall, club and sport legend though he is, looks like a 37 year old playing elite sport. Frawley is just terrible. We must bring ECW into the centre and put Handley where he belongs. And I would play Connor at 7 instead of Frawley. But I fear that BA will be too stubborn to do either of those things. I've also been very disappointed with Ackers since he signed. O'Connor is a better starting 9. The start of another long, old season I fear..... Only positives were that the defensive line speed is noticeably better under BA. And the return of Holroyd and Gannon. Other than that, depressingly awful.[/quote:2cehhgr2] Totally this...and all that hype about a tough preseason and how superfit our squad now is...we looked totally gassed after 20 minutes...as for the one out style we seem to be adopting...truly shocking to watch. Really horrible and a massive deflator for the season ahead

When is Brad Arthur’s contract up? Is it about same time as Salford go into liquidation and Rowley becomes available?