Can't wait to see Ian Kirke's stats this week given his role in that 17 selected.

It will also be interesting to see how Richard Moore got on given he's been brought in next season to take up some of the prop slack.

oh you tease

I've seen them now. Jaws will be dropping all over Leeds when the weekly thread goes up.

did 'Gentle Giant' make double figures???

I have no real idea what his stats were, but he was completely ineffective on the day. It goes without saying that he didn't break a tackle or make an offload. Seeing as our kicking game was appalling and we didn't force any drop-outs, he didn't get his usual easy yards from that.

I'd guesstimate 10 drives for 48 yards.

As an aside: given Brisbane Rhino absolved our coach for the Quins performance (and maybe it would make more sense if the performance was untypical) as the players had "one eye on Wembley", I'd like to know why the players who should, by form, be clinging by their fingernails to a place in the Wembley team, or pushing for inclusion in it (Clarkson, Pitts, Lauititi, Kirke) were so terrible too. Unless, in a masterstroke of man-management, they already know the favourites and the team and have no motivation to perform.

The game before Wembley final often is surrounded by controversy. I remember it used to be a regular occurrence for clubs to field complete reserve sides to avoid injury. It is always in the players mind to avoid injury prior to the final and opposition sides know this and raise their game and often their physicality accordingly. So I would not dwell on our last performance (or lack of)

With regard to team selection and tactics for the final IMO we have to start with our very best defensive line up. Our game plan should be to close down the Wigan attack and frustrate them to such an extent that they start to lose some confidence and break from their game plan and start to make mistakes.
It would be nice to think we can field our best attackers and score some great tries with an expansive game. But we have too many players well past their best and DM not fully back to fitness and form.

Therefore I would start with Sinfield at 6. If Buderus needs a rest I would keep it brief either side of half, time and use Sinny as cover at 9 thus allowing Burrow and McGuire some space to vary our attack. If we are still in the game as the 2nd half progresses we will then need Burrow at 7, McGuire at 6 and Sinfield at 13

So we need the boys to step up on Saturday and keep our discipline. We will need a good kicking game to keep play in their half and of course a lot of luck. But it’s the cup and anything can happen.

I haven't absolved Brain from the rest of the season. I've simply said that had he known the team would play soft - which they obviously did given Quins' record over the last few months - then he would have been as well picking an Academy side. As it is, we've picked up injuries to our centres, and lost another league game. Are you seriously suggesting that we wouldn't have beaten Quins if that same 17 had put in real effort throughout the game, bad as we are? All I'm saying is for that one game only, have a look at the players not the coach.

BM may not be much of a motivator or a great coach, but he's certainly got enough awareness to know our best chance for next week was for us to try to build on the recent wins and build some confidence and combinations. Otherwise there was zero point in picking any of our first team. IMO when we lose games like that its entirely down to players slacking off.

As for Sinfield, where does this nonsense come from that if he doesn't play stand off he spits the dummy?

I think David's partly right (not about the sacking).
Sinfield is on record as thinking he's a six and so, it seems, does McDermott.
So, obviously, you then play your usual stand-off at 7.
And you put your normal 7 on the bench, of course, or maybe bring him on at 9 to give the old feller at 9 a rest.
And because your 7 is now your spare hooker, McShane gets no game time.
Oh.. and Sinfield (being a six) gets a spell in the centres during defence and then we miss him defensively in the middle.
All very logical.

Nice one Brian.

Its the chopping and changing I don't like. Halfbacks should play the full 80 minutes at halfback unless they get injured. Whether that's Sinfield/McGuire, Sinfield/Burrow or Burrow/McGuire it doesn't matter. There's no other team I can think of that rotates halfbacks regularly like Leeds.

The problem is we used to get away with "carrying" a half back at loose forward, but over recent seasons our lack of go forward from the forwards and backs has really stood out. I don't think, particuarly given the strong packs of Weegan, Hudds, Wire & St's, that we can afford to have a single pack member who doesn't take the ball up aggressively. Sinfield has to play so 6 is the obvious postion.

When has sinfield said he's a six? I'm not trolling just genuinely can't remember him ever saying it (oh and everyone knows sinny is a 10..."he's well fit in'he"

)

I'd agree with your point but it's not a problem that we've only had this year and this is why (for all his faults) I can't see why people think Sinny at 6 is a BMcD brain fart. The modern game has moved more and more towards workhorse LF's and away from playmakers - to get away with not having a big 13 you need a dominant pack.

The messiah that is Tony Smith also had the same issue eg Furner played at 13 in the 2004 Grand Final - I guess the enabler for Sinny playing more at 13 would be that we brought in Ellis and then JP meaning we had a pretty special pack - our pack in 2007-2008 must have been one of the best Leeds has ever fielded (...and didn't Kirke play in both those GF's

)