I ask you again what are these weak coaching decisions you speak of? Why does it always have to be the coaches fault if we lose?

I would have used the bench differently but that is not to say it would have changed the result.

We played the best side from the NRL who were ready and up for it. On the night the players made some errors and we were second best. Their line speed in defence (with occassional generous offside judgements from the ref) was impressive and our PLB´s too slow (We missed Bailey in this respect and didn't struggle enough to get up quickly) They marked out key players better than we did theirs. We fluffed 12 points and gifted them 6 maybe 12 points. Yet despite all this, and not being at our sharpest, the difference at the whistle was just 2 penalties that we chose not to take. I can live with that

Well Bellamy certainly built much of his game plan and pre match practice in targeting Sinfield. He even had a player wear a shirt with Sinfield's name on who was the main target for hits. On the night Kevin was dumped on his backside without the ball quite a few times as proof of their respect.

Interesting that you put Mcshanes tackling technique as a "major reason" for our loss yet dont mention Burrow bombing a "sitter" or his at times slow and low distribution from dummy half and dont even mention Achurch's involvement in the missed tackle or Watkins getting thrown off like a rag doll.
Mcshane has better passing from DH imo and could prove to be as good a 9 as Lunt given the chance his lack of consistemncy is as much about his lack of gametime as anything else and even in a sh## Widnes team he showed he can comfortably perform at SL level and influence games nowt wrong with being good for a lower team is there afterall you have a penchant for Cross.
I'm not in any way saying he is a better RL player than Burrow nor that he's gonna be the next Buderus but Burrow was having a poor game disttribution wise and also imo was poor at Cas and outplayed by Mcshane v Salford that's where i say starting spots should be earned.
As for reading the options when we were at cas Burrow consistently ran "blind" passed to players not even expecting the ball and imo had a mare Mcshane came on and got us going forward ripped cas at PTB and again passed much better.
Burrow is quality i'm not saying otherwise just that on form i think Mcshane should have had more gametime at 9.
Now again i dont need a run down on Burrows merits or his outstanding achievements i'm talking current form here and now nor do i think Burrow should be ditched but he's not been that good at 9 thus far an BOTH his AND Mcshanes errors on friday played a pivotel role in costing us the game.
G1-RE-The Burrow comments. Has he been top notch in your opinion and should his undoubted quality and past achievements make him exempt any kind of criticism when not at his best??

I wouldn't bother entertaining his comments, they are ridiculous.

To criticise Mcshane on Friday and making an attempt to excuse Burrow is bewildering.

It wasn't just the bombed try, lot's of players that happens with every week. The problem was that wasn't his only handling error. His distribution from dummy half was shocking, his continuous attempts to run for himself rather than his team mates yet the Melbourne defence had him in their pocket.

Burrow has been poor in 3 out of 4 games so far this season, 2 of those games worse than any other performances he has put in, in his leeds career. To ignore that is just naive, he is not excusable from criticism.

Leeds vs Melbourne = Man of the Match
2008 - Kevin Sinfield
2010 - Cameron Smith
2013 - Cooper Cronk

Oh

Agreed Burrow is a good tackler but when has he been tasked with defending down the middle?



Leeds - like most teams - defend with their starting half-backs out wide, one on either side inbetween centre and wing. Leeds - like no other team I've ever seen (including Leeds prior to 2012) also defend their regular starting hooker out wide. It's a positive to have your game-breakers on the field as much as possible but it can also be a negative if it places additional defensive duties on tired over-worked forwards.

Under different coaches Burrow has played at 9 and I remember he did defend down the middle quite well but as I said the opposition forwards targeted him to slow him up.

You have overlooked one important point. Leeds - have achieved remarkable success with the policy of playing our regular starting hooker out wide like no other team. I do not agree with your inference that this means we have tired overworked forwards. You overlook the fact that in keeping Burrow fresh to attack it allows him to make some of the metres that the forwards would otherwise have had make let alone putting on match winning plays and most importantly it keeps him on the field for the full 80. This tactic has been proven to work very very well.

How good was JP? Awesome.

Anyone worked out the value in playing Clarkson for just the final 10 minutes. He has been on a good run, return to form etc. I'd have used him more. Especially seeing as our forwards on the whole looked a little 'leggy'.

I have mentioned Achurch and both the Burrow sitter and also the Mag one which you did not. After these misses the scores were still equal at half time. In the context of the game Mcshane's miss (and then Achurch) put us 6 points down and IMO gave them the all important momentum to gain another back to back try. Hence I maintain the McShane missed tackle was the most crucial as having got back into the game it became a turning point.

Pattern forming quickly this season - Kirke and Achurch can't be trusted to build on the good work the 2 starting props have started.

Remarkable success? WTF

We have played one season this way, and won the one trophy. Only by changing the way we started the season playing by bringing on a proper hooker and playing him for more minutes than he was previously doing did we achieve that success.

Which barrell do you scrape these arguments from?