Just got back it was another game we won without having to go through the gears.
We scored some decent tries but again made some awful errors and conceded 3 simple tries imo.
Great to see Young Minchella get over on debut and he did ok luckily although Sutcliffe was named on the RW he lined up as RC and had a good game.
Finally the Ref G.Stokes wow is all i can say another official who only sees 1 team infringe at the ptb but lets the opposition have as long as they want to clear the ruck missed some blatant high tackles for both sides right in front of him and Clarkson knocked a Salford pass down 3 yards forward when he was stood 3 foot away and waved play on!!
God help us if this the "new breed" of SL officials.

Something tells me I'm onto something good.

It should be "into".

"Something tells me I'm into something good"

Hermans Hermits from the days when songs had a tune you could whistle to.

Centre could well be Sutcliffe's best position. His skill set, so far, shows everything needed for a star centre.

I think you could be on to something here. It was certainly a stroke of luck last night that Hall took ill, which forced the changes it did. Sutcliffe was a bit of a revelation in this new role, although he did swap with Watkins often.

By the way Rhinoms, I don't think the ref was that bad last night. Inconsistent at times as you said, but seen much worse.

Some good performers for Leeds last night, some poor. What we have been seeing all year. Thought Hardaker was brilliant.

It is into

Blame the time and "tiredness"

Re-Ref mate it was the ptb area that annoyed me more than anything i've no problems with what he penalised us for but just ignored Salford doing it more often than not.
Just a quick one he penalised us for obstruction when JP was pushed by a Salford player into the side of Burrow who had the ball yet burrow NEVER went behind him either??
Also their last try looked very much like a blatant obstruction imo.

Juan I know you support mac D but do you not think some of his new players or positional changes are forced rather than planned? e.g hardaker becoming regular centre then full back

Without injuries how many games would Singleton, Sutcliffe and Foster have had?

Should injured players get any priority above Sutcliffe in the playoffs?

Injuries allow a coach to try out reserves or established players in other positions. This has always been and will continue to be the best chance for players to establish themselves. Some rise to the occasion while others don't.

In the case of positional changes the coach will be well aware of a players ablilities or shortcomings from the daily training sessions when they sometimes play in different positions to improve their skills and awareness but also for the coaches to be prepared when injuries strike. Most wingers these days play a sort of fullback helper role in defence and have some actual experience as a FB which was the case with Hardaker. As the main part of Hardakers game is physical it was a reasonable bet that he would also be ok to cover the centre role too.

IMO Hardakers best position is possible wing. Although he has been a success at FB, and especially at running the ball back because of his strength to break tackles, I think he is not a natural in this position and too often is not in the right place. Experience will improve this but again ,as I have said, he brings the ball back well but does not link up well to create space and overlaps in the way Webb used to do. BJB is more of a natural FB and Watkins could make an excellent FB IMO.

With regard to the youngsters. They have come in and grabbed their opportunity and shown they have a future. However with the exception of Singleton (who has been on the fringes of the first team for some time now) I am not sure the others have made the position their own. Sutcliffe has got the class but hasn't yet shown he can run a game so if the choice at 6 is him or Sinfield I would go with Kev everytime at present. As I have suggested maybe Sutcliffe could make a centre position his own and move to 6 later in his career á lá Schofield. But I would find a place in the squad for Sutcliffe in the playoffs subject to form.

Similarly if the injured players have proven themselves at training to be fully fit and sharp (as BJB did) then in the playoffs you would have to go with the likes of JJB, Delaney and a sharp McGuire.

My big worry this year is that so many injured players will not have the chance to gain form and match fitness before the playoffs and will have to rely on mental toughness and experience to start hot as BJB has done. So the youngsters have a chance in the last league games to really make selection a difficult decision.

Hardaker is the best defensive fullback I have seen in super league since Wellens was in his prime. He is faster and more agile than Wellens ever was.

Other than Radlinski I can't recall a better fullback in the comp than one of these three. What an absolute waste to put him on wing, and I am including Webb who had other qualities.

I didn't include Tomkins as he is a good player playing fullback, not a specialist fullback, and don't think he will play that role in NRL.

I totally agree with your view on Hardaker. I don't recall ever feeling more confident in a Leeds fullback to make last line of defence tackles or deal with high kicks. My only criticism of him would be that at times he could pose more of an attacking threat. I don't think he'd ever be a Webb type additional pivot, but he could develop his support play more which was very effective for Wellens.

Don't get me wrong, he already is an attacking threat at times and has great pace when he breaks the line, but he can take it to the next level and genuinely be world class.

If he had been playing on the wing permanently since coming to Leeds I've no doubt that he'd be an automatic selection for England as he would be the finished article in that position.

Indeed.
Wellens' positioning and reading of the game as a full back in both defence and attack was superb.
But a three-toed sloth was probably faster.

Hardaker would be a superb winger but is more valuable to us at fullback. He'll probably never be a Webb-style extra half, but he's got plenty of other positives to his attacking and defensive games. It just means that the team has to play a slightly different way to how they did with Webb, and ultimately the next "dynasty" will be built around getting the best from Hardaker and Watkins.

However with England, he should be playing on the wing, simply because he's a better player than the other options there (Charnley, Briscoe, both of whom are good but neither as good as Hardaker). You don't see Queensland or Australia leaving out Inglis, Boyd or Hayne because they're club fullbacks but Slater has the rep jersey wrapped up. They put them in other positions when they're still the best option there, and it should be the same with Hardaker.

(There's a case for Tomkins to play in the halves with Hardaker at fullback, but that is never, ever going to happen).

Completely agree re-ZH which is also why imo Sutcliffe either stays at 6 or moves to 13 so we have the extra "pivot" we've lost without Webb and ZH sdoesn't provide that type of FB role.
Ideally for me i'd line us up 1.Hardaker 6.Sutcliffe 7.Burrow 9.Mcshane 13 Sinfield.
Mcguire IF he regains fitness comes in on the bench to replace Burrow at 7 when Mcshane goes off and RB goes to 9.
I doubt the Coach will do that and i think Sutcliffe will be the one to miss out or be benched which imo is the wrong option given how Sutcliffe has played ,Mcguires obvious lack of match fitness and how RB has played at 7.

Hardaker is very strong defensively and equally as good returning the ball but when he links into the line when attacking the line from 5/10m out he stifles it quite often. I think he has improved in this area but Tomkins is far more dangerous when he links in.