Of course it is, but it can only do so much. As I said on a Friday to Friday game schedule, teams will only do "game training" (ie training as we would think of it, working plays/skills/shapes etc) on Wednesday or Thursday as the rest of the week prior to that is based around recovery. Also I would be very surprised if there is any full contact training session at all once the season starts.

But what is the statement "players should be able to manage one game a week" based on? At what point, with players size, power and speed increasing all the time, would that have to change? If it's the case then would you say no player should be rested at any point this season?
Of course players could physically play in the game, but how effective would they be? And what effect would that have for the week after?

You're right some players don't play 80 minutes, but most of the players people would rest are players who play long minutes and are usually in the thick of the action. People like Peacock, Ablett, Delaney, Sinfield etc or a player like Leuluai who's an impact prop in his mid 30's. I don't think anyone would say someone like Bailey or Clarkson needs a rest.

I agree on McDermott, though I'd have been tempted to have had one of McGuire, Burrow or Sinfield out there to give a bit of leadership and structure from the halves. But, like the Bradford game, the players out there should have done better.

The coach also needs to start looking at himself after the recent defeats to Wakey , Bradford and London plus Warrington apart we have been ordinary for months at best . Yes he can still turn it round but if he does not the buck stops with him .

i was a bit amused at my fellow leeds fans at the game. at 30-8 there was signing and dancing, i even joked that i hadnt put enough on my bet. by the 75th minute disbelief had set in. goulding was terribly, ok first game, but if you cant shine against london i doubt you ever will. London did the right thing and targeted hanley i think it was on Ryans halls wing. scored most of their tries through his defensive lapses.

Ok, IF we win next week and we all cheer. then we look at the table and see that we boned ourselves in the league for a CC win. 3 cup finals in 3 week i heard one of you say. well had we respected london and bulls they woulnt be the must wins that they now are.

I blame mac for his subs, should of started with the debutants and brought on experience to tidy up any lapses. the players alos take a huge chuck of responsibility.

However, i felt Singleton played a blnder in the first half. really showed that he is coming along nicely. though sutty was ok and was much better in his kicking game than zak. za did ok, the sort of performance you expect from a player whos in a cup final next week. watkins was amazing. every time he got the ball he looked like scoring, maybe had he passed to briscoe (broscoe

) on the final play... Ifs, BUTs and MAYBEs...

for 1 thing, we had better win next week, because for all the promise they showed start of season we are in real danger of winning nothing

What the absolute f-k, how are we in real danger of winning nothing?!?

This board is so pessimistic it's untrue.

FINALLY we see McDermott getting just as peed off as us fans. COINCIDENCE that senior/golden generation/leaders of this Leeds team are the ones that will not be blamed? McDermott is scared of falling out of favour at Leeds. Big individuals in the side that he needs to keep onside, that is why he has never publically critised and voiced his frustrations at them. But as soon as they are out of the side, we see him doing just that.


I'm annoyed & embarrassed. But just think on Saturday at 5pm all will be forgotten.

I care. I wasted a day and a boat load of money going to watch the team i support capitulate without even a whimper. Perhaps they should come out and tell us fans that they dont give a toss about certain matches so we can avoid wasting our money going to support them?

Well, he can't criticize the senior players when none of them were playing. He could have criticized himself for not playing any of them so there was no leadership on the field (just playing JJB, who's had hardly any rugby this year, would probably be enough to seal the win). Or he could have criticized himself for building a club that has no structures or relies entirely on individual play to get through a game. The reason Wigan can bring their kids in and look fine is not because their kids are better, it's because they're fitting those kids into a jigsaw they already know how to make.

There is a big difference in fitness between Premiership and championship players in terms of fitness.

Quite right Sal. You can forgive the debut boys as they need time and you must expect a few errors however certain of the more experienced players obviously took their foot off the gas which was the problem. There was enough experience to defend our big lead and the kickers should have gone for field position and close down the game. We must look to learn from this and turn it into a positive to motivate a strong run in for a top spot.

Also had we not been in the final it is likely that this game would have been chosen to rest key players and blood youngsters before the big end of season matches in any case.

To compare a RL player to a baseball player is bizarre. The physical demands are at opposite ends of the spectrum.

To quote the ex-RL-players among you 'how do you know what is like if you have never played'? Every sport has a different kind of physicality but regardless of what sort it is, as a player of the sport you have to be able to match the physical requirements. The likes of Djokovic or Murray might struggle to recover from playing a RL game to then play the following week, but then they are tennis players. They run around for about between 90 mins and 4 hours almost every other day for as long as they are in a tournament and play dozens of tournaments through the year. If they can't hack playing back-to-back tournaments then after a while they have to question their ability to do the sport as (to get anywhere in it) it is required of them.

A rugby league player who needs 5 days to recover from the physical game should consider his ability to play the game - unfortunately it IS a physical game. He either gets fitter, bigger and stronger or if it is too knackering, maybe he should look at something he is more physically able to do.

If I played an RL game, I'd probably end up in hospital for a week. Therefore I don't play rugby league. Instead I play football, run, cycle and play baseball as my body is able to manage with what is required of it to do those things. If I start getting dicky knees for a few days after running or cycling long distances, eventually I will have to reconsider if they are the best activities for me and find something else.

I think there are a lot of good, able rugby league players. There are a lot of average players too. Maybe this is a cross-over period where the overall standard is improving and it is just that whereas some are physically able to take and recover from the big hits, others are not yet there and need several days afterwards to recover. In future, maybe it will be different.

Most RL players take 5 days to recover from games these days. It's what's expected and is built into the training schedule each week.
Why do you think coaches moan when they only get 4 or 5 days between games.