Here's the thing, though. It's the order in which those wins and losses occurred that bothers me more than the overall number of wins and losses (although that wasn't too awesome, given that we finished sixth). The mantra has always been (because it's usually been true) that this great team always comes good when it counts. It's pretty hard to reconcile "coming good when it counts" with the feeble form we showed at the end of last season. We actually "came good" in February, March and April this year.

People talk about the Bradford and London games but the ones that sit with me are Saints away and at home. When we played them away we were in good form and playing a weakened team. But their youth and enthusiasm did our very poor tactics of playing up the middle. That seemed to be the end of our flowing rugby. Then the game at home worked out well for McD. Again, they were there for the taking. But Moon's sending off gave McD a 're out of jail free car's. We played e game with 14 men which was diabolical - and because the coach 'didn't think feel the need' to play 2 of our bench.

I can imagine our leaders getting the team up for the big games, but tactically our coach is well off. When teams work out our game plan, he can't seem to react.

A good coach looks at his team and plays the best way for the personnel. Looking at our team it's the backline that is strongest but he continued to try and win a forward battle we struggled to do.

The biggest signing for me this off season won't be on the playing side, but an assistant who can bring attacking structure and challenge Brian.

We also played against very weakened sides against Wigan at Magic, and against Warrington at their place. Lost them both.

The team fell short on a number of occasions. Do you imagine that when GH and Brian review the season that fact won't be at the forefront of their minds? It's only natural that many fans consider matters in identical fashion.

Part of the 'problem' IMO is what seems an ever increasing over reliance on the 'grinding tactics'

These can work in poor conditions and have served us well on damp October nights in Manchester but this season especially we seem to have relied on this tactic more and more in all conditions.

The problem with the 'grind' is that it doesn't blow teams away, unless the grind wears down and tires the other team out so that you can then up the gears and get the rewards by scoring the points later on.

This season we haven't been capable of going up the gears often enough and the problem with that is the tactics keep the game tight and therefore the other team is kept in the game longer therefore fatigue doesn't come into it as much as if the game is kept close and tight the opposition retains their enthusiasm and confidence etc for longer.

There have been so many games this year that we've lost towards the end where we've only started throwing stuff at the opposition when going behind late on and haven't managed to real them in as by then the opposition have 'grown a 3rd leg' through keeping in the wrestle with us and then taking the lead late on and we then try and hit them with our 'off the cuff' style.

We have an awesome looking back line on paper but don't seem to have either the tactics or half backs to be able to utilise them to their maximum potential which is very frustrating to watch.

I would agree with a lot of the above. The away match at Saints was an example of a problem which was also present in a few games we won. Specifically, we struggled to break down pretty much any decent defence for most of the season (the few exceptions coming early on). There were a few times when we were dominant for long periods, but never really put the game to bed. In a few cases (Wire at home also stands out) we got through on some very tough defence, but I felt that we'd had the field position to put the game to bed and not done enough with the ball.

If anything, watching other teams on Sky, that tendency for both teams in most matches to have spells in ascendancy has seemed more pronounced than ever this year, and it's been the teams who are best able to put points on the board who come out on top. We didn't score enough points when we had our good spells last year. Our defence was very good, which was great to see. We need to hang onto that and put some more emphasis on attack. Not because it's pretty and adds entertainment, but because we'd win more matches.

That game in particular sticks in my mind. We made some very easy yards up the field, and countless times put ourselves in good attacking positions. But we could just not find a way through. Saints defence in their own 20 was good, but we just kept going and going with the same plays that werent working. A lack of plan b....a phrase i've uttered more than once from the terraces this year.

We cant utilize a sub bench properly let alone having more than 1 game plan up our sleeve.

Those consecutive games we lost last year and some quite late on concerned me .It went from one to another and it got to the stage where I was expecting a defeat

An old saying, but if you want to go sideways with the ball in rugby league you first have to go forward.

By putting teams on the back foot with good drives and quick play the ball, you earn the right to exploit a retreating defence by getting your backs into space.

Leeds don't have a single forward who can dominate collision with the ball in hand and generate good ruck speed. Not one. The starting props look like they need a winch to get them off the floor every time they are tackled, and the bench options are powderpuff runners who get dominated in the tackle way too easily.

That's why to an extent it doesn't really matter who Leeds have at dummy half or at half-back, as they are getting zero space to work in and constantly coming up against set defensive lines. Before Leeds can unleash that backline and not have to rely on it creating chances for itself (as it did in the first half of the season pretty well), they need to have some forwards who can create space and momentum for it to work with.

Yet in the first half against Cas (and quite a lot of the second half) in the cup final everything was simple for us based on quick PTB's and dominant collisions by the forwards. If Clarke had been playing for us that day we would have destroyed Cas completely by half time. We did pretty well in the semi against Warrington as well.

I also know very well that general thinking is that you have to go forward before you can go wide, I like to think of it more of a rule that if you do make the half break up the middle and get a quick PTB then you MUST go wide.
But, if you don't stretch a defence you allow it to condense and then you will never win up the middle if the defence can safely stack the midfield and put 3-4 guys into the tackle without worrying about covering the wide areas. There has to be a tangible threat out wide that needs to be covered, so you have to attack with width sometimes - even if you are not winning the battle up-front, or use a kicking game that forces defenders to stay in wide areas.
My view is that this Leeds team does not surprise anypne when they go wide. With the pace we have we should look to attack wide 2/3 tackle from in or around our 20, and do something that I don't see anyone doing much these days, double up the centres. Get Moon and Watkins on the same side of the pitch linking well inside our 40 early in the tackle count, add Hardaker to that and watch the trouble it would cause the defence.

One thing Leeds used to do really well was attack from deep i.e. their own thirty with quick short paces out wide to the likes of Senior. We have potentially a really good backline for that type of attack but we don't seem to possess the same level of speed and skill to execute these plays.

We have never seriously troubled sides in the own 20 - we haven't had a half back with a half decent kicking game nor the attacking structure to create openings so it is no surprise to me that we cannot break sides down in their 20.

The only real set play we have is the dummy half pass to a prop (usually Peacock) Sinfield sweeping round and receiving it off Peacock, with a wedge play (lead runner and Zak out the back)... That's it... The grand sum of our attacking prowess in the opposition 20. This is usually preceded by 3 'nothing plays' to set it up, and if it doesn't work, kick to the opposite corner for Hall.

There is zero creativity in the 'red zone'. A big problem is that our halves are no threat with the ball in hand, so the defence can pick of the runners knowing they'll have the speed to react if either of our halves take the line on themselves. Only Burrow is a threat ball in hand.

The other issue with that wedge play, is that we never use the short ball to the "decoy" runner. It's obvious that the ball is going to go out the back, usually because the decoy goes through too early to be a threat to take the ball. Just once or twice a game, hit the lead runner with a no-look flat pass. Make the inside defenders think before they pass on to the outside players.