We nearly changed my brothers middle name to Loretta by Deed Poll as a stag weekend prank - if it wasn't down to the fact that no-one could manage to get their hands on my brothers credit card that he doesn't have a girls middle name.

Loretta was specifically chosen as my bro is a big Python fan.

Anybody who thinks a plan involving moving a starting threequarter during a game is somehow a good idea is plain daft. Nobody does it for a reason. If Keinhorst is the better centre then start him there. If Ablett is the better centre then leave him there for 80 minutes. You do not PLAN to move 1-5. Its the sort of nonsense somebody trying to be clever would think of.

As for Clarkson I wasn't suggesting him on the bench, I was suggesting he start at 13 - even in poor form with the ball his mobility in defence would have been useful based on the painfully slow defence our forwards showed.

The selection was a risk yes, but not a joke. Webb, one of our best attackers over the years, had ruled himself out of the reckoning due in to bad discipline and form, and McGuire, another of our key players was out injured. This left the coach needing 2 replacement strike players. Therefore one obvious positive option was to play young Keinhorst who had done well the week before and had been knocking on the door of selection for several weeks. The other more negative option was to play another prop, in Moore, which would have increased the number of our props to 6 on the day! or another negative option was to go for Clarkson who is a good defender but offers nothing with ball in hand.

I had posted my view prior to the game that to play Keinhorst was a good but risky option but that I expected the coach to go with the extra forward. I also said that I would have taken the risk to play Webb.

Why are you "almost certain there was no plan to bring Keinhorst on after 30 minutes" Jonathan Davies had said on the BBC prior to kick off that he understood that Leeds were planning to bring him on towards the end of the first half. This indicated a logical game plan to try and hold Warrington early doors with a defensive game and then open up a bit more having weathered the early storm. What changed that gameplan was the heavy rainfall which made a more attacking style before half time too risky, so they brought on another forward and held the youngster back.

I do not agree that the weather almost gave us a chance as our game plan was working before it came down. In fact the change in the weather could have been our downfall as it probably was the main factor in Sinfield choosing to go for 2 points instead of 6 just before half time. This decision possibly gave Warrington a mental advantage.

Ablett has done well as a stand in centre but at best that is all he is. Having gone for Keinhorst I would have started him however IMO it is understandable that for this game the coaches wanted to play a defensive game early on and perhaps wanted to allow his nerves to settle down a bit before bringing him on. Nothing daft about that. Indeed it is nonsense to accept you can change the forwards in a match but not the backs.

There may have been a couple of strange selections, but personally I thought there were 2 or 3 huge decisions that went against us which changed the momentum of the game.. which we couldn't afford to happen if we were to win as Warrington are a better side. We needed a bit of luck to have a chance and didn't get it...

Graham Murray used to PLAN to move his 1 during the game every week and keep a reserve full back on the bench. It worked quite succesfully.

Didn't he recently play an international at that position?

I thought the Leeds side in the Final was pretty unrecognisable from the one that beat Wigan in the semi. In the semi Leeds seemed to play with a lot more intensity in defence and looked more threatening in attack too. Losing McGuire obviously influenced the attack but defence? I was disappointed with the Leeds line speed and the space around the ruck was vast.

The second half was all Warrington as they strangled Leeds and made them play in their own quarter for most of the game. Leeds seemed incapable of breaking out and played too much up the jumper rugby, someone like Moore would have been useful for his offload game. When they did move it wide it was like watching the Lost Loiners with wild passing to people stood still with nowhere to go.

Leeds are capable of a lot better.

Sad indictment of the depth of quality in SL really.

(I like Ablett by the wayclub[/i quality player)

Agree with pretty much all of that. The side needs a bit of work doing to it but I feel the main problem is the coaching..

Correct.

Nope.

Unless you consider fixtures against the Exiles as internationals.

I am not knocking Ablett who is a fine utility player and, as I said, has done well as a stand in centre. However despite his many attributes he is not a class centre and lacks speed. The international selection is more of a reflection on the dearth of class middle backs available.

With the exception of one or two, Leeds lost pretty every collision in the forwards, whether attacking or defending.

The problem with that is that it builds momentum against you and is a hard cycle to get out of. With fewer flair off the cuff type players than usual, we struggled to make much yardage, and looked short of ideas.

The reason for us losing the collisions could be a combination of a number of reasons, one of which is players ability.

I doubt there were many Leeds fans laughing but not so sure that extended to the Warrington coach, players and fans.

Outside backs on the bench are a waste of a precious place. If they're good enough they should start, if they're not then what are they doing there. But this wasn't even a versatile, experienced outside back it was one with I imagine less than 80 minutes total 1st grade rugby experience, with no record of making an impact from the bench in his previous outings, whose planned participation could, according to some, be blown off course if it rained on a day when heavy showers were forecast.



The only player the novice Keinhorst was ever going to come on to replace was Ablett at left centre. Ablett is a far better left centre at this point than Keinhorst, so Keinhorst's introduction weakened the threat there not increased it. If a second row was required (as that is where Ablett was moved to), a better solution would have been to pick a second row on the bench instead of an outside back. A fresher legged genuine second row would offer more security than a drained Ablett for the final twenty. Especially as up to Jones-Buchanan's injury on 32 mins Ablett had been defending 4th or 5th man in, switching with Jones-Buchanan so already having to defend at left second-row because of Leeds' starting hooker needing to defend at left centre.

Is there another team in the world of professional RL that defends it's starting hooker at left centre? Doubtful - I can't imagine why it hasn't caught on.



Either would have offered more than Keinhorst in the seventeen, of the two selecting Clarkson would have been the correct choice for me.



Was Webb available for selection? Where would your chosen option to select Webb have left Keinhorst or would you have played both Webb and Keinhorst and if so who would then have missed out?



When prior to kick off did Jonathan Davies say that? Was it during the build up with Clare Balding, Brian Noble and Ian Millward? If not during the build up on the live BBC TV coverage, then where?



It's a case being built around a statement I'd like to see verified first.

If Keinhorst was intended to be introduced after weathering the early stom why wasn't he introduced after weathering the early storm. The storm was forecast, did someone forget to tell McDermott. The weather can play a huge part in games and a tuned in coach will be across it like an F1 team sat on the paddock wall especially if it's likely to effect his planned substitutions.




According to Dave Woods commentary on 26 minutes he quoted a comment from Ian Millward the previous evening that he felt wet weather would suit Leeds. At half-time Brian Noble said the weather would effect Warrington's game the most and it may help Leeds. At half time the error count was 8 by Warrington and 2 by Leeds. Leeds have won the majority of their Grand Finals on wet night's at Old Trafford, where the scampering sure-footed runs by Rob Burrow have proved highly effective. Leeds are a proven wet-weather team but no you must be right that the wet-weather actually hampered Leeds' one man safety first approach while aiding Warrington's spin it wide off-loading game.