I'm pretty much in agreement with Ferdy - I went off a bit too quick against BM last season, so am a bit wary of having too much of a go this year.

The problems within the club - and nobody can say a 50 point loss at home with a close to full-strength team followed by a just as p*ss poor first half performance the next game aren't suggestive of BIG problems - are a combination of coach and players. No matter how much people might want to make big changes to the squad quickly, its very hard to do, likely to be counterproductive in terms of whatever team spirit exists, and to be frank the lists of players on other threads are hardly inspiring anyway.

That leaves the coach. BM has to either really stamp his authority on the team or go. IMO he'll be given to the end of the year to oversee a miraculous turnaround, but if it doesn't happen won't be here next year.

Regardless of whoever the coach is, its clear that the attitude of some players needs to change. Losing by 50 at home to anybody is simply unacceptable unless you have almost your entire first team out. I'd be more impressed with the players' attitude if they actually DIDN'T say anything to the press - the whole "we know we didn't perform, we're working hard in training, we have the ability to sort it out" mantra is pathetic TBH seeing how they've been saying it for half the season and seem if anything to be getting worse not better.

GH agrees IMO - just as he was obviously upset by the CC loss to the Wire. If I were betting, I'd go for CC semi exit and failure in the play-offs, followed by BM's departure and one or two biggish name signings for next year to placate the masses. Possibly a good job I don't bet, as I can also convince myself the exact opposite is possible.

The problem with the "biggish name signings" is that by then (yet again) it will be too late. Still, it gives GH an excuse for the customary all expenses paid trip down under.

Hi BrisbaneRhino - you make some really good points, and I agree for the most part. It probably won't come as a surprise to you though if I say that I think it would be a real shame if McDermott was to leave at the end of the year, and would hope that with the support GH gave him last week, that that won't happen. I think we've seen it a lot in football where management thinks that sacking the coach is a quick-fix, but often the teams that have done this fly through coaches and end up shelling out huge sums of money because they haven't really addressed the problem, and of course St Helens will have now had three different coaches in as many years and they only sit fourth in the table, four points ahead of us, who have a game in hand. They're already out of the Challenge Cup so unless they win the Grand Final, I can't see how they will be any better off than us by the end of the year whether we win or lose the League.

Wigan clearly was exceptionally poor as was our start at Warrington, but I thought the last 50 minutes was a step in the right direction. I said in an earlier post that I think the problem with some of the lads is more desperation than just having a bad attitude (I know you don't say they have a bad attitude), and I'm sure that if we can build on that last 50 at Warrington and play well on Monday and then again against Cas, that will slowly start to go away. I don't think we need any huge changes to the squad (when I say that, I mean that I think the likes of Sinfield, Peacock, McGuire, Burrow, etc will come good for us), but I would like to see us sign a Buderus-type person - I think that would lift everybody; in the changing room, on the field and in the stands.

I totally agree with you about the players speaking after the game - I don't mind if you train badly in the week, just perform come game time!! I think the Challenge Cup semi will be a real test of their mettle and we can't doubt how much they want to finally win that trophy, but it will again come down to whether we play with desperation or composure! I would also really hope that we don't just sign big names to placate the masses - whenever anyone says that the names "Bradley Clyde" and "Brett Mullins" pop into my head!!

That's really spooky! Whenever someone says Brian McDermott....rlTHISrl pops into my head!!

Yes because who plays on the wing is of absolute paramount importance to the functioning of the team. People can talk about the neccessity of having a quality spine - full-back, half-back, hooker and an awesome foursome to carry you forward until the cows come home but without a good winger to score a few tries they are pretty much pointless.

I entirely take your observation that investment is vital but do you take mine that so too is good coaching to get the maximum out of whatever you are given to work with? The uncomfortable fact remains that London's league position worsened under four and a bit seasons with McDermott as he took them from a mid-table challenger to play-off qualifing no hopers. There was a time when coaches built their reputations on leaving a club in a better position than when they joined it. Not neccessarily in terms of trophies (not every team/coach is in that position), it could be in terms of structure, professionalism, performance etc. Perhaps McDermott did that it's not always easy to tell but sport tends to be viewed from the outside as a results based industry.

If McDermott found himself on the job market tomorrow I doubt there'd be a queue forming to enlist his services. I could be wrong but it would be interesting to find out.



I admire your blind faith but what evidence have you seen that the club has recognised the problems and are currently addressing the needs? Is it the extension of Carl Ablett's existing contract beyond doomsday?



The stats are an overview. They show Leeds becoming less competitive against the teams they need to be competitive against. They show in McClennan's final season Leeds still winning in 50% of the regular round encounters V such opponents. That's no longer the case, not even close to being the case.



Leeds didn't win the league last year they finished 5th. Leeds won an end of season 'knock-out' competition to determine the Champions from a ridiculously large and in parts undeserving field of entrants. It was a great feat, totally unexpected and anyone who seriously claims any different inhabits a peculiar blue and amber tinged world, IMO. But these things occassionally happen in sport - without being too specific - the rub of the green, the bounce of the ball, an intercept just after half-time, a missed tackle, a contentious referee's decision, a team not handling the pressure of being overwhelming favourites even with home advantage against a team they'd humbled twice in the regular rounds etc. It's a great concept .... it's sport ..... it happens ... now and again. It's unlikely to ever become a formula that will work year after year though.

6 of 43 ?

I presume the 43 is made up of last season and this' SL Regular Rounds to date?

Have Leeds not played Warrington, Wigan and St Helens home and away in both 2011 and 2012 now. While 12 of 43 is a 28% size sample when including all SL opponents it's realistically a 95% + sample of the teams Leeds will need to be competitive against when the trophies are being handed out.



Leeds (thanks to agent St Helens) did avoid the team they were unable to beat in three meetings last season. Leeds did avoid the team in the play-offs they have never beaten in a 1st grade final. Leeds did avoid a team who McDermott has thus far never coached a Leeds side to beat, (although somewhat ironically he found himself in the winner's circle quite often when London/Harlequins played them.) Perhaps they will get a 'lucky' draw again this year, fingers crossed eh. I imagine that technique has made it's way in to the Leeds CEO's manual by now.



Not sure I follow your logic as it's a similar squad of players under different coaches.

Leeds with McClennan managed to beat Wigan even in 2010 after Maguire had arrived. McClennan left Leeds with a 50% record V the cherry and white mob and an average result of 19-19. Leeds with McDermott have taken 1 point from a possible 10 (10%) and an average result of 16-29 by comparison.

By way of historical comparison

I don't I only get to observe how they perform on some match-days and compare that level to what they are capable of when they switch on. Coaching is a combination of player development and man management. The players have to want to follow the leaders. They know when they are being short-changed and I imagine so do some of the fans.

TVOC, when did Wigan become the yard stick? Leeds have contested 13 domestic finals under the coaches you have listed. They've only played Wigan in two of those finals (lost them both) but have beaten Wigan many times to reach the other 11.

Hi tvoc - you and I are just never going to agree! I think you're being a bit too dismissive of my comments re Fa'afili, who could play centre and wing, offering some versatility and great experience which could be passed to his colleagues. I agree with you that of course the spine is important but I would never say players such as Keith Senior didn't make a tremendous difference to our team because he didn't form part of the spine; what made Keith a quality player was not just his ability to score a few tries, but his experience and physicality, which is enormously important as both support to his senior teammates and as an example to younger players. Fa'afili was just one example of players that didn't play or left - another example is Henry Paul, who was never replaced, again a player with great experience who could lead a team.

I agree with you that a good coach should get the most of the players he has, but who's to say that McDermott didn't? Myself and other posters have talked a lot about attitude within this thread, and I've already mentioned that London is a Club which in recent years has primarily attracted players who just want to play rugby (this doesn't inspire anyone to play for pride in the shirt they're wearing). A standard contract is 2-3 years, and with lack of financial investment it is difficult to let a problem player (or players) go before his contract ends, so in most cases you just have to sit it out and do your best.

I don't think for a second that I have "blind faith" in the management - again, we've 8 years worth of primarily incredible memories which I use as evidence of their desire to win (unless you would suggest that this was all just luck?) I don't need to see any headlines to know, off the back of this obvious desire to be successful, that it will be being worked on behind the scenes, but of course, GH's acknowledgement of the disappointing results last week was a nice to have. We seem to be two sides of a coin on this - me with my faithful view, you with a cynical one. (And I think it's a rather too early to be using the word "doomsday"icon_wink.gif.

For me, the season is all about the Grand Final, and I think if you ask any player (perhaps particularly a Warrington player) whether or not they want to finish top or win the Grand Final, they'll all say they want to win the Grand Final. If you ask them how long the season runs, they'll say until October, not until September. All those elements you discuss, "rub of the green", "bounce of the ball", "a contentious referee", a team bowing to pressure by being overwhelming favourites happen week in, week out, and thus effect your League standing. We did not play well for the majority of the season last year, I make no mistake about that, but we reached the Grand Final and won because we were the better team against everyone we played. If we'd played like that all the way through the season, we would have finished a lot higher; we proved that the potential was always there.

Apologies again, my maths was wrong there. We might have avoided Wigan in the run up to the Final, but obviously we did not avoid them in the Cup. While the first 15 minutes of that game was really poor, the remaining 65 was brilliant, and we undoubtedly outplayed them. We could have beaten Wigan that day, but getting out of the starting blocks late as we did proved to be costly, and I don't think you could blame Mac for that. I suppose my answer here is that we could have beaten them, in a 1st grade final, for the first time under Brian McDermott.

You specifically mentioned that we'd only beaten Wigan twice in ten games since Michael Maguire arrived at Wigan, and so I was pointing out that 1 of the last 2.5 years was under Brian McClennan, and like I say, this suggests something in the players mentality. While I appreciate one draw from five games is not what we might have hoped for, you're comparing a man who's had the job 18 months to Tony Smith who had 4 years and Brian McClennan who had 3 years, and these stats don't take into account injuries to either our team or Wigan's, which of course effect the game. Incidentally, under Graham Murray we lost the 1998 Grand Final, which I would gladly have swapped for the in-season wins.

You say the players know when they are being short-changed. In the last 18 months, under Mac, Kevin Sinfield (Feb 11), Carl Ablett (May 12), Kylie Leuluai (May 12), Zak Hardaker (May 12), Jamie Peacock (March 12), Brett Delaney (Feb 12), Kallum Watkins (Jan 12), Ryan Hall (Jan 12), Chris Clarkson (Dec 11), Jamie Jones-Buchanan (Dec 11), and Ian Kirke (July 11) have all signed contract extensions, which tells me that they don't believe they are being short-changed by either the Club or McDermott. I agree, we know what they are capable of, but it's not like we haven't seen them switch on under Mac.

Again I just don't think we're ever going to agree!

To be fair just using a Wigan comparsion over a large period of time isn't too fair, McDermott isn't exactly facing the Wigan of 2005-2006.

Well said 'rhinoswinorlose'! You make some good and fair points.

There is nothing wrong with constructive criticism but much of the stuff on here is just negative and a repeat of the comments made last year by the usual suspects. I defended Brian Mac last season (and was also called Brian) and cannot believe after what he achieved last season and the WCC this season that the knives are out once again. I suspect some posters having been proved so wrong last season are banking on history not repeating itself and feel safe in having a go again just to say they were right all along.

Yes we have been dissappointing again against the SL leaders but the ageing stars are another year older. Having produced the goods at the business end last year and again for the WCC this year it is perfectly understandable that the coach would keep faith with this outstanding squad for a little longer. To suggest we drop our proven quality stars of the team and replace them with unproven (at SL level) en mass, because they have suffered a drop in form is not the way to manage a professional sports team.

Yes we should now give the youngsters some experience but in a controlled way with consideration to their future careers. And yes we should be looking to recruit in certann key positions as part of a succession policy.

Finally we should all remember that despite our recent tremendous success, it is not a God given right to win every match. There are now some excellent other sides around who have taken up the batten. I still believe that this side has another last hurrah in it.

Which other team would you like to suggest instead? What is Leeds' overall SL record against that club? Do you expect McDermott's Leeds to feature significantly higher on such a list than they do V the example I chose to highlight?

As coach McDermott's SL Regular Round record at Leeds places him nestled between Dean Bell and Dean Lance (although with the benefit of some 'lucky' cup draws he moves up to around the Daryl Powell mark when including all comps) I wouldn't expect a big improvement but who knows.

How about a team that has won 5 of the lst 8 championships? Why shouldn't other clubs measure themselves against that?

Some of us already know this.....

While I understand it's not a given for McDermott to neccessarily use all seventeen players on matchday I've yet to notice any time his team has started the game with twelve.

Like the Fa'afilli case it's another short-term setback rather than the game-changer you would like to imply. It's the type of thing all clubs have to deal with from time to time, it's not unique to London/Harlequins or London/Harlequins during McDermott's tenure. It could only become an issue if you don't follow the 'no excuses' mantra.

Let's be clear, when Henry Paul left the Harlequins he was 34 years of age and never re-surfaced in SL after opting for an easier life in Union. He had played three seasons at the Stoop, two of those under McDermott. Harlequins league position was already faltering while he was still there. IIRC Luke Dorn was brought back to the club from Castleford to partner Danny Orr in the halves with Rob Purdham moving from second row to loose to cover Paul's half-back/loose forward role at the Quins - so I'm not sure the 'never replaced' comment of yours holds much water under scrutiny either.




Who is suggesting any club, let alone one I support, could ride such a wave of good fortune.

There was an element of luck in avoiding one of the teams Leeds had failed to beat in 2011 on the way to being crowned Champions. Nothing Leeds could do about that and they had to beat the league leaders on their own patch so they had fulfilled their part of the bargain but the current play-off format is flawed IMO when a top two team loses home advantage for the eventual QSF to a team who finished below them at the end of the 27 Regular Rounds after being given a week's rest. That is a big penalty to suffer while playing a highly competitive team while others get an easier ride against some comparitive dross.

Equally there had been an element of luck in reaching the Challenge Cup Final without having to play any of the teams sitting above Leeds' unusually lowly position on the league ladder - a run of good fortune that has continued in 2012 - only it has proved impossible to avoid a 'decent' side at the semi-final stage this time. I don't begrudge Leeds or McDermott that run but acknowledge it was fortunate ...... which it was. I try not to confuse being lucky with draws and hard won coaching ability.



The use of 'doomsday' was not intended to pertain to Leeds' immediate or even long-term future. The point was that extending player contracts virtually 'ad infinitum' (for those such as Ablett who are already secured over the medium term anyway) will achieve very little to alter the direction of travel in 2013. If the trend is currently downward then it will likely require more than the retention of the contracted group to turn that situation around. Either pressure from within through the Academy ranks or an injection from outside. The present coach appears a little reluctant to try the former at present and his CEO shows little desire to try the latter.

Around this point last season someone who has just recently joined the thread stated that Leeds had 'the weakest set of forwards of any of the top sides.' If he was right then, was he still right after the Grand Final? If he was right twelve months ago what has changed since then?



So? Does that mean the rest of the season doesn't matter. Rather than ask the player's when their season ends wouldn't it also be a good idea to ask them when their season starts? It might help those naive supporters to understand the nature of what is served up to them on a regular basis before they (the so called professional players) are prepared to click into gear for our entertainment.

I'm an advocate of the Play-Offs deciding the ultimate Champions but there is an inherent danger that if you get the format wrong you can undermine the credibility or point of much of the Regular Rounds.

The best format we've had, IMO, was the original top 5, in use between 1998 and 2001. Only the genuine contenders those seasons earned a chance, every higher play-off place had a reward over the one below and your next game (perhaps bar the QPO that afforded a second chance to the loser) was your most crucial of the season, flowing to the ultimate Grand Final decider.

No rewarding mediocrity throughout the regular rounds and a reasonable guarantee those clubs who'd earnt the right to contest the final would ultimately do so.



It's arguable that the outcome of the Grand Final turned on an injury to a St Helens player. While he was on the field 16 - 8 to St Helens including a try, after he left the field 24 - 0 to Leeds with 18 of those points coming down his defensive channel. Only the last second Hardaker intercept bucked that trend. That McDermott is one fortunate coach.



Could/would/should have but crucially for the record keepers didn't despite what was a pleasantly surprising competitive performance on the day, especially considering the relative humiliation the week before at the Stoop against a team without a win in their last seven rounds and only one win in their previous fourteen. Another example of this set of 'Champion players' only playing when they feel like it perhaps?



I don't think you get the chance to do these swaps in real life do you? I'm pleased Leeds did the league double, especially after the Cassidy 'tackle' on Morley at Central Park and while disappointed at Old Trafford I felt Wigan were the better team over the whole season (Leeds were massive improvers under an absolute quality coach but not quite there) so deserved it. Perhaps that defeat led to the following season Challenge Cup triumph including taking out the then big three (Wigan, St Helens, Bradford) on the road to Wembley '99. Not much luck in that draw although it's always nice to be at home rather than having to travel.

You'll note the comparison didn't exclude any Leeds SL Era coach. The figures are accurate and reflect the percentage of points won and the average score does what it says on the tin. Yes there will be a variation in the number of opportunities each coach has had of recording wins (not forgetting losses also)but McDermott's Leeds have faced Wigan five times now so not sure how many more defeats are required to firm the record up and make it comparable to your satisfaction. With a record so far that reads

Could also be that the players are simply comfortable in their surroundings. Perhaps too comfortable with no pressure on performance at the core of the squad with only the fringe players places under any type of threat.

The performances have been generally pretty poor since McDermott took charge. All his fault - of course not - but he's the one that will ultimately have to carry the can just as Simmons did earlier this season at St Helens. It's how sport operates and as much as the CEO (for now) tries to apportion blame in the direction of the players he's only got limited room for manoeuvre in the prevailing market conditions.