Bit of a pointless debate about who's got the most out.... Losers make excuses, winners get on and find a way to overcome the challenges....

But just for the sake of discussion, a better comparison rather than numbers of players missing/squad numbers of players missing etc would be a comparison of how much percent of their current salary cap spend is missing - though the actual figures for this would rarely be available.... In the interest of speculation, I'm sure people could have a stab at estimates for both teams.

I agree. Which is why I said right on page one, no excuses. It is other people who have started a peeing competition on which players, and then couldn't even get that correct.

But if so pointless, why then did you proceed to complicate further and keep the excuse going?

Because, whilst I do think it's pointless, the discussion is happening (just coz I think it's pointless should have no impact on anyone else wanting to continue that discussion)... And if it's going to happen, the percentage of salary cap value would IMO be a better comparison in any such debate, and could lead to people throwing up some interesting opinions and perceived salary cap values of said missing players....

As you say quite pointless debate, but in all fairness to him Gotcha wins it hands down.

Pretty much every team in the league has had injuries to key players. Just that some handle it better than others. Maybe because of our recent history we thought we could keep doing what we do and come out the other side. Whilst others that are used to battling with less blessed players greater understand the mind set to drag out of it. I don't know, but Cas winning with a proper and hooker at half back tells me that their team are working together to get the results. And that they have a coach who can utilise what skills he has available I. His squad. Better than ours anyway

Press conference today only mentioned McGuire returning this week. If that's the case then I won't be surprised if we line up:

Hardaker
Golding Watkins Keinhorst Handley
McGuire Lilley
Galloway Burrow Garbutt
Ferres JJB
Singleton

Cuthbertson Sutcliffe Walters Mullally

Achurch Briscoe

Squad numbers mean nothing. McGuire is not our first choice stand off, Burrow isn't our first choice scrum half, Ward isn't our loose forward, JJB isn't a second rower anymore, Keinhorst is a regular in the 17. Sutcliffe is Mac and GH starting 6.

As for Leeds being closer to their optimum in the opening 6 rounds, compare it over the season, our first choice 3/4 line has played together TWICE this season. Our captain (playmaker, pivot, most important player) has played 2.5 games. Our first choice backs have played together ONCE this year. Our first choice pack hasn't played together AT ALL this season. Our first choice back row has not played together AT ALL this season. Our first choice front row has started together THREE times this season. Handley has played more games than Briscoe and Hall combined. Sutcliffe (number 14) has started all but one of our games. Lilley (number 25) has played all but one, Mullally (number 20) has played all but two games.

No team has suffered with injury as bad as us.

Numbers is a flawed way of looking at things because each team's strengths lay in different areas. For Leeds people constantly go on about the strength of their back 5 as well as McGuire pulling the strings, our forwards wih the exception of Peacock over the years weren't seen as our strength. Skip to a team like Saints and you're not overwhelmed by their back 5 but in the likes of Roby and Walmsley and other forwards that's their key.

Wigan's back row
Saints front row
Wire's halfbacks
Leeds' back 5

Leeds showed they could win without a proper 9 in 2015. Saints showed they could win without proper HB's in 2014....but flip it around and could Leeds have won without proper HB's and would Saints have won without the it proper hooker in Roby?

Well said. A rugby team's biggest asset is it's first team players. So to lose more than half your main asset almost every week for what will be this week 14 out of 22 rounds at least is a major handicap and cannot be overstated. This was on top of the retirement of our two on field leaders and main playmaker and as you point we have had to do without our new leader and playmaker for most of the time.

The critics seem to think this total disruption somehow should not affect performances and neither should the loss of another main asset which harmed our pre season preparations and hindered training and perhaps has extended the recovery time for some of the injured. I do not know of any other SL club that has been unable to use their training facilities for five months or had as bad a set of injuries each week. So like all disasters it is the accumulation of several factors outside your control that taken together becomes unsolvable in the short term.

This doesn't excuse certain senior players who have been woeful and have let down the young reserves that have done their best. There is a good case for moving on a few of the star names who have been found wanting.

Our captain has played 27 minutes this season. Ben Roberts, 3 games. Trust me , our injuries have been as damaging as yours have. Only difference is we've edged a couple of close games, namely you lot and hudds at home whereas you've lost the majority of tight games.

Injuries explain some results, but not performances. Defensive shambles shouldn't be a weekly occurrence regardless of the 17 picked. Its also not as if we've had 5 17-year olds in the team.

Also in retrospect the 'tactic' of picking half-fit players every week has backfired spectacularly. Stop doing it, play some Academy players if needs be and make sure everyone on the field is fully fit.

Don't most squads number 1 to 17 for optimum when all fit and available?

I'd say Leeds did with only the late arrival of Ferres (26) which only inflates Leeds' number and yet as I said in the majority of the opening six rounds (the only games I had figures for at the time) Leeds were still closer to their cumulative optimum compared to their opponents. That says to me while Leeds were affected so we're the teams they were facing.

It might not be great but as nobody has yet put any effort into doing a detailed analysis beyond asserting Leeds have been the worse hit then what else have we got.

Some comments were made above of the makeup of Leeds teams being away from their optimum but all those changes would only increase the Leeds figure yet it was found to be still under their opponents in the majority of the opening six and that is the point I'm driving at.

How long are the departures with twelve and ten months notice going to be wheeled out as excuses, they surely cannot be valid as the club knew about the situation in good time to plan ahead for 2016.

I think that's the point. Injuries, no matter how widespread, can only be used as an excuse for a while. A club the size of Leeds, with its relative wealth ought to be able to manage injuries better than most sides. Its certainly not good enough to argue that half a season gone and we're bottom and playing like a shower of the proverbial is down to injuries.

The coach and players available are on paper easily good enough to offer strong defence and after so many weeks we ought to be able to at least play to a basic attacking structure which works. That doesn't mean we'd be able to beat the top couple of teams, but we ought to be winning more against the lesser lights.

For mine injuries simply don't excuse the absolute garbage offered as a unit on a regular basis in defence. Its laughably bad, and even worse because its the same problems every week.

Exactly this

So, given that our injury problems have worsened since game one, how long can we use that "excuse?" You honestly think with 10 players out (like Hudds 2 weeks ago) we should have won? Get in the real world