Ignoring the other stuff, even when I was still living in Leeds and going to most home and away matches, the only reason I had a season ticket the last season I was still there (2006) was that I had it for Christmas and it made the weekly household budget easier to manage. I probably only went to enough home games to break even.

you make some good points,and i certainly agree with the part that we need to get some structures in our game.

Look at the top sides.Wire and Wigan have very good structures and when they are in the opposition half always look dangerous with the runners all knowing what is happening.The 20 minutes Wire took us apart at Wembley is a perfect example of this.However,like you say we rely too much on individual brilliance to come up with points and in defence look all at sea all too often.

Mac has had 2 seasons to stamp his authority on this group but nothing has changed and whether he has the ability to or not i dont know, but i cant see it changing next season.

But,as has been said maybe its just best to let him see out our transitional period then line up a top quality coach to bring some fresh ideas to the team.

Have you ever had a season ticket Billy, and if so have you ever felt you got value for money out of it?

Mac has one season on his contract.GH will appoint a new coach for2014 if no improvement on 5th place

Previous coaches typically haven't stayed around long after not winning a GF.

the sad thing is, there will still be people posting on this thread bashing McDermott even if we win the GF again.

A general observation confirmed by Opta to be the case.

They had Leeds making a total of 7 to Les Catalans 18. The Leeds figure equals their season best while only Warrington have made more mistakes in a game while facing Leeds this year in SL.

The +11 to Leeds in that category (although many of Les Catalans' errors were self inflicted) represents a season best advantage. With Sinfield really stepping up his defensive effort you can tell the important games to this group are finally here.

I'm with tvoc on the fact that since the WCC you could only count Wigan in the CC semi as an impresive performance (maybe Wire at home too). Cats away was a good result, but not really that impressive given their record in play offs. Balancing that we have numerous drubbings (including at home) and poor performances against the top 3, and another very poor Wembley effort.

I suspect the Cats result will mean McDermott will remain for next year regardless of the result against Wigan (especially with McGuire out giving us a ready-made excuse for a loss). However, I'd hope that GH makes very plain to the players as well as McDermott that performances in weekly rounds must be better next year. He'll be well aware that season ticket sales holding up based purely on being able to win at the end of the season is no way to run a business.

And that Leeds - Warrington game at Headingley in Round 6 is the one referenced in the post above yours. Warrington even managed to out-error the Les Catalans 'performance' from Friday. That is not to suggest Leeds didn't perform well but in both cases they were considerably helped by mistake-ridden opposition efforts.

Let's hope Wigan are feeling in an equally generous mood - although they weren't in either of the Regular Round meetings so far this season making 8 and 10 respectfully according to Opta.

By the same token some of our losses this year could be attributed to our high error count which would mean the winners were "considerably helped by mistake ridden opposition efforts" too!! We had the 3rd highest error count in SL. However your stats are pointless unless they also record that these errors actually cost us those games otherwise it is just conjecture. Warrington finished one point behind the leaders and lost 5 fewer games than we did yet made 15% more errors over the season.

Perhaps but not neccessarily so. Which specific games do you have in mind?



Do I say errors and errors alone cost any team any game? I think they are a key element but there are other elements also. There is a tendancy for some to focus on penalty counts almost to the exclusion of everything else but sometimes penalties conceded at an appropriate time and situation prevent a worse case occurring.

Do you think taking an overall season tally as you have done there adds anything to a discussion regarding whether on any given day one team making a disproportionately high amount of errors in relation to their opponents has a key part to play in the eventual outcome?

The relevance to the statistic is on the day not when taken as an average over 27 rounds. If both teams make a similar amount of errors the impact on the result will be marginal. If, as occurred on Friday, one team improves on their usual average while the other exceeds theirs and it result in a large disparity then I maintain that the large disparity will have an impact on the outcome.

The average over the season will have no bearing unless the game falls in-line with those averages and this one clearly didn't as Leeds made 46% fewer errors than their average would suggest they would over 27 rounds just as Les Catalans made 23% more than theirs.

It's the disparity within the eighty minutes that can be argued to have had an effect on the outcome not neccessarily the relative averages of the two competing teams over the season.

Of course errors have an effect. You inferred that in some key victories this year opposition errors was a major factor in our wins. Maybe so and maybe not. But wasn't it ever thus for most games in sport? But unless you are precise in how each error led to victory or defeat it is pure conjecture that the error counts were vital.

In any game an error (or penalty) or series of errors or penalties can have a major effect on momentum, and the result, depending on where on the field it occurs and if on 1st or last tackle for instance. In some games the numbers even up over the course of the game, but it is the timing of the errors and the context within a game that can determine the outcome and not the pure numbers of errors/penalties.

You appeared to be concentrating on the number of errors rather than their individual importance.

Only as a general indicator but for me often a telling one. Not completing your sets is rarely if ever a positive factor - unless you have evidence to the contrary that you'd like to share?

I remember a coaching clinic, maybe three years ago, it was pointed out that the worst completion stats or error count (one of the two) belonged to Leeds and Warrington, that year. The reason? Both teams would chance their arm to score points, and were confident enough in their defence to do that.

I think if you're a poorer team, then you have to play the game of field position, which comes from completing sets and turning over on your terms - a clearing kick, or attacking kick for a score or repeat set.

The first paragraph sounds like an approach a talented team could adopt in the Regular Rounds, the second paragraph is Play-Off football.

I think I said earlier on this thread that both Warrington and Leeds had played good play-off football last weekend and should go forward with some confidence.
That wasn't said off the back of error strewn casual performances like you might see during the Regular Rounds but off the back of set-completion, kick-chase and challenging the opposition to go the length if they wanted to score.

St Helens under Rush appear to have been concentrating on getting their Play-Off style together. Wigan I'm not convinced about. Should be two fascinating games this week - looking forward to it.