It was on the fourth tackle IIRC.

If you think your winger should be 30 yards behind the defensive line on the fourth tackle, then you're probably on your own in that regard.

If anyone was out of position, it was Watkins. But he's not this year's scapegoat.

Scapegoat,give over.

So explain to me why that 40-20 was Vickery's fault and how he was "out of position"?

He was exactly where he should have been. Watkins was stood in the middle of the field, pretty much where he should have been.

It was a good kick, well placed and well executed. Just because Leeds seem to lack anyone with the vision or ability to execute 40-20s doesn't mean it has to be someone's fault defensively when they concede one.

Vickery may not have been out of position but it is no coincidence that we are conceding 40/20s down his wing with such regularity IMO

An excellent point and Sinfield played a lot of second row early in his career. I suppose a balance must be struck between what is best for the 1st team right now and Ward longer term. Id rather he be given some opportunity to play pivot soon though especially as I don't think McGuire has been pulling up many trees recently.

JJB 48 tackles - 19 marker tackles - 2 tackle busts - 18 carries - 97 metres - 2 offloads - his line speed won possession for our first try.

JJB 48 tackles
Ward 32 tackles
Bailey 28 tackles
Delaney 23 tackles (and off injured)

48 tackles is brilliant. But how many misses? There were 3 in a 6 minute spell in 1st half alone. How many penalties conceded?

5 metres per carry is very poor.

So in other words, work rate, enthusiasm can not be faulted. What is achieved can.

Are you trying to prove that the back-row are being overworked in defence as a result of the coach's refusal to play a hooker? If so, congratulations.

For me vickery wasn't at fault for the 40/20.

However watching the game back this morning I wasn't impressed with his effort. In the background he is plodding back and only really starts to run at Watkins first attempt. Would like to see the winger busting a gut to get back to offer an option, sweep up or tackle.

Perhaps not just the back-row, Sinfield finished with 32 tackles which pushes his season average upto 27, much more than the 19-a-game he was doing in 2011 and 2012. It's more like the 28 average he had back in 2009 when he was playing loose forward.

Some halfback tackling comparisions......
Sinfield - 27 average
Danny Brough - 13.4
Luke Robinson - 15.8
Blake Green - 17.4
Matty Smith - 17.1
Rangi Chase - 8.1
Richie Myler - 17.3
Michael Dobson - 14.3
Tim Smith - 12.2
Jarrod Sammut - 16.7
Daniel Holdsworth - 18.6
Danny McGuire - 14.8
Rob Burrow - 8.7

Think teams are seriously targeting Sinfield this year. They know how important he is to this team, and is facing heavy attention.

First 8 games of year he isn't anywhere close to what he has been over years. Personally I think the heavy targeting and the constant playing for both club and country is seriously taking it's toll on him, which isn't fair on him. His half back partner certainly isn't taking some of that workload off him.

What can he do - he can't morph into Sinfield for the tackling and as virtually every play Leeds have ends with Sinfield I am not sure what McGuire can do? We have had this discussion numerous times - you will not change things whilst Sinfield is your attacking go-to man - this has been the case since 2003.

But halfbacks from any team face being targeted as the key to stopping the opposition, so I don't think that is the reason for the big gap in the tackling numbers between Sinfield and other halves. Plus we were heavily targetted in 2012 on that right side that Sinfield defended and he still only did 19 tackles compared to 27.

Either way, your Stand-Off shouldn't be doing 27 tackles a game. No wonder we aren't looking as fluid in attack in the final 20m when the guy who should be creating has had to do almost double the work in defence as his opposite number.

I think a big difference to most other teams is the hooker defends centrally and doesn't have to be hid on the fringes.