Arrived back on Sunday evening after a long flight from Melbourne. For the first time ever, I've not suffered any jetlag. This forum is only ever interesting when Leeds are on a losing streak so yes, good timing.


There's a certain irony insofar as I used to be castigated on here for being an eager doom-monger after regular season defeats. Leeds will turn it around when it really counts, etc. Now that I've changed my opinion on regular season defeats on the basis that they matter far less than they once did - due in the main to the current play off system which is intent on rewarding mediocrity - I'm now castigated by the same people for refusing to criticise the team and join in with the knee-jerk doom-mongering.

Leeds can win SL this year from a mediocre 6th place IMO so there's really no need for any panic or knee-jerk reactions.

I disagree entirely with your interpretation of events. Sinfield was tracking Shenton and would have had him. Hall was sliding out, and at the last minute made the decisionto come in on Shenton.

If it rained yesterday, does that mean it will rain every day for the rest of eternity? A sample size of, lets see, exactly ONE, is a useless basis to make a case about league position not being important, when there is actually a significant data set suggesting the exact opposite.

Since the play-offs started, only Leeds last year managed to win from such a lowly position. The statistical evidence is very clear - finishing in the top two is by far the best way to give yourself a decent chance of winning the SL competition.

All last year 'proved' was that it is possible to win from as low as 5th - not that it is likely. That, IMO is a good thing - otherwise why not go straight to a GF between the top 2 without any need for play-offs at all?

You'd need several years of teams outside the top 2 winning the comp for the basic premise of 1st/2nd having the best chance of winning to be dented.

Comparison with the NRL is irrelevant.

Someone appears oblivious to the changed play off format which now rewards mediocrity and renders the regular season as practically meaningless. Might explain why the same person has collated non like-for-like evidence for comparative purposes to include all previous play off formats which actually rewarded the higher placed teams in a more appropriate manner whilst also maintaining a level of integrity during the regular rounds.

Or you may be mathematically illiterate. NRL comparisons in a SL data set? I'll let others decide.

Fair enough.



Is it your position that Sinfield would have caught Shenton had Hall stayed drifting out to cover Makinson?

Had Hall initially moved forward in to the defensive line rather than backing off his chances of closing down the play of Shenton would have had a far higher chance of success. If not preventing the pass then perhaps getting a touch on it deflecting it off course. As it was Shenton had dealt with Sinfield with footwork and had burned him for pace on the outside before timing the pass to perfection having been allowed the room to do so by Hall backing away until it was too late.

I suspect those 'others' may decide that you lack comprehension skills. Feel free to take up your comparative NRL concerns with Sal Paradise who introduced the absurd NRL analogy in the first place.

PS: Citing data set evidence from Top 5 and Top 6 play off results doesn't strengthen your argument. It actually weakens it. But you already know that.

<failure to quote your post entirely intentional BTW>

Keith no one is oblivious to the changed playoff format as all you seem to write about on several threads after most games is ''how 8 team playoffs reward mediocrity''. Most people, myself included think 8 is too many and a return to 5/6 would be better, but we don't need to read it on several of the post match threads hijacking discussions people were having about the actual game that took place and views on the team and individual performances. We all understand that Leeds winning the Grand Final last year won't of pleased you but constantly bemoaning the playoff system is never going to alter the fact that it happened. Its a perfectly good opinion and one many share, but come on stop repeating the same thing over and over again.

have

Yes.

Yep, it was a lovely piece of centre play. excellent footwork and well timed pass. It's a pity though, that Shenton has only rarely displayed his full range of abilities in his RL career

Shenton displayed that on a weekly basis at Cas.

At Saints has been another matter. But interesting how after Monday the Saints fans have a change of view, and are now, like us funny enough with Watkins, saying just look what can happen if you actually pass to the right and use Shenton.

Appears they haven't been utilising him as often as they should have.

From my view Sinfield had Shenton locked on.

Sinfield would have had Shenton. Hall should have held on.

Brilliant finish from Makinson.

He may have had him locked on with his eyes, but he wasn't getting there with his hands. Shenton had got him squared up then did him for pace on the outside.

I disagree and share Bloodbath's view. It happened right in front of me. Sinfield comfortably had him. IMO.

Of course, we will never know because Hall came in and didn't slide out. Had Hall slid out and Shenton beaten Sinfield to score there would be little to discuss and little doubt where the blame lay.