My point about Burrow is it appears it is either him or Sutcliffe that gets selected - if Sutcliffe is the future is his only chance of getting selected when someone gets injured? By the time Burrow came on the game was over, Hull were finished. He played well and given how both half backs played in the first half especially McGuire nobody could have objected if either had been substituted for Burrow.

On Kylie - McDermott wasn't keen on introducing him when they really needed some impact in the first half, by the time he did come on he did an American i.e. turn up when the war was won. Even Peacock looked a different animal in the second half from the first.

Second half at times reminded me very much of the 4-30 win there on Easter Monday 2008 in the snow.

I don't think Leeds were too far off the pace in the first half. It was frustrating individual errors that kept Hull in the game and some indiscipline. After Leeds opening set of the game they did not touch the ball then for another 9 minutes. Then on the first set after that period they invited more pressure with coughing the ball up third tackle from the forward pass.

There were some frustrating individual errors in the first half but Leeds seemed to be making hay down the left channel with Ablett, Moon and Hall. There were just some poor choices. Leeds could have scored but for JJB losing the ball over the line.

Leeds have conceded try from a kick and fallen for oldest Leon Pryce trick in the book. It was bitterly disappointing to concede a try like that.

Not really a lot to say about the second half, but like Hull in the first half Leeds had possession for the first 8 minutes of the half and took full advantage. Hull losing Watts in the build up left them short and forced Gareth Ellis to play up the middle after Targut came on and he was less effective there. But the way the Hull energy levels dropped off in the second half were alarming at times. Leeds though, were clinical and effective and where in the first hald passes weren't sticking they did in the second half. Rather than go to the edges Leeds were a little more direct in their attack and it paid off for them as well.

There are tougher tests to come for this Leeds side in the next three weeks with Warrington, Wigan and Catalans on the horizon. Might be worth judging where Leeds are at after then.

Stunning second half display from us. Had the wow factor for 40 mins.

However I cant put that first half display to the back of my mind. Why did that happen? Lets face it, Hull should have had more, Wigan, Wire & Saints would have put at least 18 on the board.
Then the 2nd half, was that genius by McD or t was down to Hull collapse? When a team is flagging there is no doubt about it that Leeds are the best equipped side in SL to take advantage. However the first half performance when Hull were really firing into us is a concern. I'll firmly make my judgement on Leeds after next week vs Wire. We will know a lot more by then.
One thing I think this side will need, or should I say what the forwards in this side needs, is another mid season 'Ali Lauititi' typre signing. That could be an important piece of the jigsaw to fit/

Hey guys,

Just a quick post to say thanks and congratulate you on one of the best 40 minutes of attacking RL I've seen in a long while. Even as a Bulls fan that was a complete joy to watch. When Burrow dropped that flick reverse pass from Cuthbertson I think it may be the first time in my life I was actually disappointed that Leeds didn't score!

Seriously though, they should be showing that second 40 to all aspiring junior players across the country. Firstly, as a good example of how not to defend/tackle (Hull), but more importantly to demonstrate how to attack with pace, power, flair and exceptional ball handling. That is how this game is meant to be played.

Thanks again.

The first half was very similar to the bad patch against Hudds. The Hull forwards were running faster and harder, and winning the ground - we couldn't cope with the speed of their play the balls. Add to that the fact that we were trying to offload and go round them before earning the right by punching holes up the middle and that's why we struggled.

2nd half we visibly ran harder and focused on winning the middle - when we did that, our strike players were able to capitalise. McGuire did have a shocker 1st half, but he was playing behind a beaten pack and as a team we were still trying to go round them - he was clearly much more effective playing off the back of a dominant pack in the 2nd half - all to be expected.

I do worry that we seem incapable of matching teams when they're winning the floor - the Wigan pack would have had a field day in that 1st half, and they wouldn't have been so soft in the 2nd as Hull were.

Westerman was absolutely lead legged in defence - he was on his heels and exposed by some great running.

Watkins showed his class, it's easy to forget he's only 23, he seems to have been around forever. If he can keep his involvement levels up, he could easily push for MOS. Big raps for Ward and Singleton - great work rates on the 2 of them. Good to see both putting in performances that mean they demand a shirt - something few youngsters have done in recent times. They'd be 2 of first names on team sheet next week for me.

I think that's a little harsh to be honest, I agree with what McDermott said after the game, It's what you do when you have/don't have the momentum in RL and it would have been very easy to just fold like Hull did in the second half but we didnt.

McGuire was terrible but it was only stupid handling mistakes we were making and at least McGuire was putting himself about and getting in the right positions at the right times, even though Hull were by far the better side in the first half on another night with another ref it could have been 6 - 6 at half time.

I think we need to be more positive about the 80mins and not dwell on the first half alone, we were under some enormous pressure and came out only 12 down even though we couldn't complete a set or get the slightest bit of momentum behind us.

Kylie came on with the score 12 apiece so, as with America, the war was not won when they joined the fray and had he not made such a good impact along with others as Leeds stepped up the pace then we could still have lost. He replaced Singleton who had made the difference after half time and maintained the momentum with some good carries and scored a try. Difficult to see what he did wrong and he was introduced at the right time IMO. The coach deserves praise too for not panicking when things were not going our way in the first half and for getting the players to up the tempo and give the ball some air in the 2nd half.

With regards to Sutcliffe if he is to be the future then he has to prove it and command a place on merit. To suggest we reduce the competition for places and pick Sutcliffe by default would be a major error both for his sake and for the team. Burrow still is one of our best attacking weapons and still has a major role to play in the team. All the players should win their places on merit but sometimes you have to make a selection between players with equal form then it is understandable if the coach picks the one with proven experience.

IMO the game changed because we came out in the second half with a determination and attitude to take the game to Hull. It was this and some sublime rugby skills that won the day and not weak defense from Hull. We would have made most defenses look weak in the second half.

We were helped tremendously by Hull's bizarre decision to take Leon Pryce off at half time and not replace him with anyone.

Not like Pryce to go missing is it?

I'm just keeping level headed and not getting carried away. We were terrible in that first half and I'm not letting an outstanding 2nd half paper over that. Trying to score on every play and playing very dumb rugby. Constantly on the ropes, due the penalty count, but when we got the ball back instead of grafting for 10 mins we forced it and invited more pressure, that is not what you expect with the experience we have. Fingers crossed that was a one off and the real Leeds is the Leeds of the 2nd half. Like I said, I'll sensibly reserve judgement until next week vs Wire.

At half time I was spitting feathers but consoled myself that last week the Giants came back from 18 nil down.
As JC said we were not that far behind in the first half. They had only scored 2 tries, one from a kick scored by a 6'5" stand off vs a 5'10" opponent, the other after a scrum wrongly awarded to them. So despite much more possession largely gifted by us they weren't exactly ripping us to shreds.
My worry was how much had we taken out of ourselves by having to defend for such long periods.
The way to deal with that was to deny them possession in the 2nd half which was precisely what we did.
I'm struggling to recall 40 minutes of rugby in which we were so dominant & attacked so brilliantly with pace & precision.
If that is how we're going to play then the crowds should roll in.
Here's hoping.

Well painful as it was for us, I can only say well done to your guys for a terrific display of rugby. At half time I felt quietly confident, 5 minutes into the second half knew it was all over. I think Pryce was taken off because of an injury. I'd noticed him having treatment on the field earlier.

The game was won after 5 minutes into second half when a Singleton inspired Leeds (set one up and scored one). Hull were shot after that and there was only going to be one winner.

That game tells you all you need to know about the character of both teams.

Some players copied the game, tale of 2 halfs. Wasn't working for mcguire in 1st, but everything stuck in second. similarly Wards silly penalties in 1st half were bettered by great leg drives with ball in hand and another impeccable defensive stint.

As bad as we were 1st half in attack, our defence was very good overall, although our failure to control the PTB at times is worrying. Hull had more ball and territory in the first half than we did in the 2nd and given the fact that we had to make 100 more tackles than Hull in the first half it makes our 2nd half performance look even better. Re: Kyle. I thought he had his best game of the season so far and along with all the substitutes provided good impact off the bench, however, I'm not sure Kylie or Singleton would've been given as much game time had Peacock not been injured. Re: Burrow and Suttcliffe. To be honest I think if Sutcliffe doesn't start then he probably shouldn't be in the 17 at all, bringing him on for 10 minutes isn't going to do anything for his development as a HB so he'd be better off going to Hunslet and playing 80 minutes. However, I'd like to see him get some time at 6 in place of Sinfield at some point this season. Burrow is still one of the most dangerous players in this country, and he did provide an impact last night and was a big reason why Leeds put Hull away. I still think we'd be better going with Aition for 80 minutes and having another forward on the bench, but Burrow was excellent. Stats from last nights game: www.superleague.co.uk/report/11208

As bad as we were 1st half in attack, our defence was very good overall, although our failure to control the PTB at times is worrying. Hull had more ball and territory in the first half than we did in the 2nd and given the fact that we had to make 100 more tackles than Hull in the first half it makes our 2nd half performance look even better. Re: Kyle. I thought he had his best game of the season so far and along with all the substitutes provided good impact off the bench, however, I'm not sure Kylie or Singleton would've been given as much game time had Peacock not been injured. Re: Burrow and Suttcliffe. To be honest I think if Sutcliffe doesn't start then he probably shouldn't be in the 17 at all, bringing him on for 10 minutes isn't going to do anything for his development as a HB so he'd be better off going to Hunslet and playing 80 minutes. However, I'd like to see him get some time at 6 in place of Sinfield at some point this season. Burrow is still one of the most dangerous players in this country, and he did provide an impact last night and was a big reason why Leeds put Hull away. I still think we'd be better going with Aition for 80 minutes and having another forward on the bench, but Burrow was excellent. Stats from last nights game: www.superleague.co.uk/report/11208

Some good points - I agree in the most part with your first paragraph. The point about Sutcliffe is how does he ever get a chance to cement a place when he get ten minutes here 15 minutes there and then gets dropped. Sinfield has been largely ineffective in the four games so far so his selection is based on loyalty, not a bad thing but how does Sutcliffe get an extended run to cement a place?

The top teams would not have conceded 40+ points to us in 40 minutes - Hull's defence was abject holes everywhere. We were superb but we would not have blown Wigan/Saints away to the same degree.