look at the minutes they have played. most have been injury free. and people like Delaney have played far too many minutes because we haven't had sufficient cover in the second row. he is 29 and looks 39 at the minute

No, as usual I'm saying what I said. That they will have tried to peak for the Cup Final....that was in response to your "but the final was easy" point. Trying to downplay reaching Wembley and the effect it will have had because of the oppositions performance. Might not have been the toughest physical encounter but Hardaker, Watkins and Burrow wouldn't have gotten injured if they'd have been sat at home watching two other teams play in the final instead. Ward, Delaney and Ablett still put in huge shifts that day that their bodies would've felt for days afterwards.

He missed the previous two before Wembley. Delaney always looks knackered out on the field, just like Peacock does. Hell its the same way they look after the 10 mins of the opening game of the season.

I do not pretend to have the answer either and Mac looked equally baffled as the poor performance too. I do have a few theories though. Form is an elusive state which can come and go without warning. In professional sport the mental state is as important if not more so than the physical one and can quicken or slow down the reaction time to make the difference to good and bad form IMO. Because we "never got out of second gear" at Wembley should therefore not have effected our post final physical performances.

Indeed in all three defeats we have made considerably more tackles than our seasons match average (+80 av per defeat approx) We also made more metres and carries than our season average but crucially missed more tackles (+18 per defeat) and approx double the errors per match too. So if were just physical exhaustion I would have thought our tackle count would be lower and not higher. Also a word in JP's defense - while not at his best he still made 42 tackles, 163 metres in 20 carries so it is a bit unkind to suggest he was "appalling" or that he has "nothing left in the tank"

Therefore we should not underestimate the effects of mental tiredness. There is the tough mental build up to a Wembley final and the post match emotion draining effect particularly for the winners who will quite naturally switch off mentally having achieved their goal. To then try and regain the mental build up for the next tough league match against top rivals is a very difficult task as many many previous Cup winners have discovered. If you lose this next match then momentum is lost, confidence takes a bash as does form.

Add to this some serious injuries losing Aiton, Sutcliffe, JJB for the season thereby restriction our options when we incurred further injury with Burrow missing for all of the 3 losses since Wembley and Watkins, Hardaker and Keinhorst missing for two of theses defeats you have big problems to fix things. These injuries led to a shortage of front line players to cover hooker and half back for three tough and tricky fixtures which saw the opposition in all three matches produce seasons best performances. All in all a recipe for falling off the horse.

Without doubt the loss of first Aiton and then Burrow caused the biggest problems. With no Sutcliffe to call on, and our academy hooker seemingly having regressed sufficiently so as not to be considered, meant disruption which ever way you look at it.

Therefore for the drop in performance to have effected almost the whole side at the same time I would say mental tiredness has to be a major factor. Much will depend on getting our injured back on the field particularly Sinfield and Burrow if we are to have a strong finish. But this set of players do have experience and usually can be relied upon to show mental toughness when it counts so I still live in hope.

Australian legend Ray Price was the same. He always looked knackered yet he was like the Duracell bunny. He could play all day.

I agree with Tad in that I think only the Saints game can really be down to a Wembley hangover.

But I also agree with Printer in that I don't think it's age or tiredness that's the issue.

I think it's that the combination of injuries we've got is very unfortunate for the way in which we were playing and for what made us so good.
A lot has been made of our back line (and rightly so) but our game this season has, in my opinion, really emanated from hooker. Aiton's work from dummy half has been absolutely brilliant this season and our entire team has played off what he was doing.

Whether it's a few steps then pass, a simple pass from DH, or a wide run across the pitch, Aiton got us moving forward and our entire attack just fitted in with what he was doing. Cuthbertson and Peacock were running off him close to the play the ball. Sinfield and McGuire were waiting in the 2nd phase to link the attack. And the backrows and centres then ran off the halves or directly off some of Aiton's runs.
Now that we've lost that that means our attack just isn't anywhere near as fluent. And against the better teams all it takes is that half-second mis-timing to blunt your attack.

We've also missed Aiton's defence. Not really for any big hits or anything but with often playing Leuluai, Peacock, Cuthbertson and Garbutt they're all very very big blokes. Aiton was the guy in defence, because he was in the middle, who could help these blokes out in defence and avoid them getting stepped around. I'd go so far as to say those 4 are probably the combined biggest set of props in the league. And without a mobile, workhorse defender in the middle they're getting exposed.

It's a difficult situation because if we play Sinfield at hooker with an extra forward on the pitch we tighten up the defence but really blunt the attack.
If we play Lilley or Burrow at hooker we improve the attack but leave us exposed in defence.

I'd be tempted to go with Lilley starting at 9 with Burrow at 14, but I don't think we can go with such a big pack.
I understand why this happened v Cas with JJB, Achurch, Sutcliffe & Keinhorst injured we didn't have much choice. But I think we've got to leave one or 2 of the 5 props out and have some more mobile second rowers in there, especially as neither Delaney nor even Ablett are that mobile laterally.

If fit I'd go with this team v Hudds:

6. Sinfield
7. McGuire

8. Cuthbertson
9. Lilley
10. Peacock
11. Ablett
12. Delaney
13. Ward

14. Burrow
15. Garbutt/Leuluai
16. Singleton
17. Keinhorst/Walters

Hardaker
Briscoe Watkins Moon Hall
Sinfield McGuire
Garbutt Lilley Peacock
Ablett Ward
Cuthbertson

Burrow Delaney Singleton Leuluai

Hardaker
Briscoe
Watkins
Keinhorst
Hall
Sinfield
McGuire
Garbutt
Moon
Peacock
Ward
Delaney
Cuthbertson

Leuluai
Singleton
Ablett
Burrow/Lilley

If Keinhorst isn't fit then Briscoe to LC and Handley as RW

Managing a squad under the cap without a reserve team is hard, but I tend to agree that whilst we looked fairly well covered in most positions (albeit with gambling on Handley and Golding as cover 1-5, which has worked), not having a capable deputy at hooker in the event of injury to either Burrow or Aiton was a risky decision. To be fair I'd assume the plan was Robbie Ward, but it wouldn't have been hard to give him a proper shot early in the season, which at least would have given him a chance to show if he was up to it and look to someone else if he wasn't. We're now way too too late in the season to do much about his lack of ability.

I'd assume next year we'll again have some academy hooker around, but we also won't have the option of Sinfield, so it would make sense for at least one other member of the squad to practice the role in training and be ready to fill in if needs be.

As it is I'd suggest that if Lilley's distribution is good enough, he should be given the chance for the rest of this year. We have enough experienced players to work out a defensive alignment that can fit him in. Its not the best option but I don't think any of the other suggestions are either - I certainly wouldn't move Moon away from the centres. Given his size maybe Sutcliffe might be the best third choice hooker option.

Fair enough if people don think Moon would work at hooker, but I honestly don't understand the argument that we can't afford to move Moon away from centre......he simply isn't that vital that we NEED to keep him there at all cost.

Let's be honest. If I said one of the back 5 would have to miss the rest of the season through injury, which would you hope it was......if being honest most would pick Moon. He's the least vital.

My main worry about moving Moon to hooker is that I've never seen him play there. That the coaching staff, who get more chance to evaluate the players on the practice field, have preferred several others makes me wonder whether he'd be as effective there as you think.

Neither would I choose to sacrifice Moon from the back 5. Briscoe would be my pick as Hanley, by and large, covered well. I'm less convinced by the options for replacing Moon, preferring instead to see Ablett at SR given current form.

I posted this on the other thread that you may not have seen which highlights Moon's importance at centre. Sorry for those that have already read it.

"Sorry Printer but I completely disagree with your conclusions.

I repeat despite Watkins silky skills and brilliant footwork Moon for some time has been the more reliable centre of the two - in no way is this comment meant to take anything away from Watkins who is world class on his day. But to make your judgement because Hall's try tally has dipped is wrong. Hall does a lot more of the heavy work returning kicks which may perhaps effect his sharpness on certain occasions too.

Firstly Leeds for the past few seasons have attacked more down the right than the left. This is due in part to Watkins's great attacking abilities and in part to not having a full back like Webb who usually ran down the left hand channel. This is backed up by the number of carries each centre has made this season Watkins (370) and Moon (206). Another factor is that Ablett who often is in the left hand channel often dies with the ball when a pass is on. Our right side has seen Ward and Achurch more ready to make a pass.

Secondly despite making 164 less carries Moon has made more try assists, less errors with better offload and tackle busts ratios than Watkins and he has also made considerable more tackles. Only in clean breaks does Watkins have the better stats.

But I repeat I am a big fan of Watkins and I make these points to show the importance of Moon to the side playing at centre and repeat my claim that he is the most consistent (not the best) of the two hence I would not move him."

I might be being dumb here, but is Aiton definitely gone for the rest of the season, or could he make a miraculous recovery? I don't remember reading anywhere that he's definitely done - though in fairness I've not looked.

16 weeks as his wrist was knackered too. He might have been back this week if it was just his arm. He has about 10 weeks to go.

Meh - bit of strapping and some injections and he'd still be our best choice in that position.