Yes, but you said that our props were the reason we lost, when they actually outgained the Wakefield props.

As I stated it was our backrowers that were ineffective not the props.

Quote christopher="christopher"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.'" It showed not a single forward in a Leeds shirt made 100m and Wakefield’s did. Their pack out gunned us. Weak.

Quote christopher="christopher"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.'" 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.

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.

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.