Had Leeds managed to win a couple of their previous CC finals, I'm sure they would have been more willing to chance their arm against Cas. Not winning the cup was a huge monkey on the collective backs of more than half the team, and I think in the circumstances a 'safety first' gameplan made sense.

As others have said the 2004 GF was a relatively dour affair as well, especially for a team that had generally been renowned for scoring lots of tries. The 2009 GF was a really dull affair as well.

Sometimes finals work out that way. In fact absolute 'classic' matches in finals aren't that common from memory (....prepares for list of great games). For every Hull-Wigan 1985 there's a Hull-Wigan 2013.

Thought it was a great result and tactically very astute with a well executed 'game plan' there for all to see. Some people described our approach as 'ruthless' and I think, for all the reasons we know well, that it was indeed a ruthless/clinical/professional sustained performance.

I also share TVOCs view that it was not particularly a brand of football I would want to see week in week out, to be honest in the cold light of day with the emotion stripped out it was rather dull stuff.

Of course this raises issues about why any of us go to see any competitive sport (to win trophies or to be entertained) of course the best teams can and do do both. In the long run I really want to go to see professional RL and Leeds in particular to be entertained but occasionally I am happy to forgoe high entertainment for a ruthless but somewhat dull trophy winning performance. Obviously losing game after game whilst trying to play sublime football all the time becomes frustrating and not particularly entertaining!

SO I would argue for a balance of efficiency and entertainment and if occasionally we have to deliver a less than thrilling performance to 'get the job done' I can live with that!! What I can't live with is low levels of entertainment throughout the season with a focus solely on winning the end of season knockout tournament by playing the way we did at Wembley.

At a time of great joy for most Leeds fans you still have to be the wet blanket. Your comments above regarding what in your eyes are "nothing play" only indicates a lack of real understanding of rugby. Field position is a vital part of the game as is control. What to your eyes were "nothing play" in fact were a key part of the game plan and a major reason that Leeds dominated and won the game.

Sinfield rightly deserves stick for running the penalty against Bradford. It was an easy two points when we were behind by two, going for a try was an utterly ridiculous decision.

But kicking the ball into touch and getting Cas locked down in their own half time after time was a fine and sensible play. Sure, we might have got lucky on another play and scored another try had we bombed them, but we could have also been unlucky and allowed Cas a break which murdered us. In the first half we were almost totally dominant and had it fairly easy, but that dominance wasn't reflected on the scoreboard and I have no problem with us being ultra conservative as the game went on.

If you put up big kicks to try and get another try, that means the whole team have to follow that kick and get set quickly so the defence is solid. Booting the ball into touch meant that the players could stroll to the scrum and instantly know exactly what they faced defensively. I don't think that Cas were in any way happy to see us kicking to touch each time, I think they knew we'd got them in a headlock and we weren't going to let them out.

Well, first of all he did say winger so that rules out Kenny, Hanley and Tomkins.

I actually thought Offiah's 2nd against us in the 94' final was just as good as the iconic first, when Cassidy broke and put him away, the significance of that was huge too as we had all the momentum after being 12 points down at HT.

The great John Atkinson also scored a great great try at Wembley too but my favourite was the semi final try in 1968 , but I suppose you can only beat the calibre of player trying to mark you

I believe Green Vigo said the same.

So e great try's there. The Hanley one against Halifax is one of my favs. But halls two try's where very special. Not all try's have to be length of field to be spectacular or great try's. And a few of the above where from very iffy defences in high scoring games.

Halls two try's will go down as great wembley try's.

Its a purely subjective matter but for me both of Halls tries were special and rank up there with any you have quoted IMHO

I'd have to watch it again, but I'm pretty sure Hanley's try against Fax shouldn't have been given because Hanley was stood infront of the PTB.

Hanley was always ahead of the play the ball.,

Lined up with opposition defensive line, bullying ref, I presume.