Apart from those games/wins Sinfield missed vs Wigan, Catalans and Cas.

Off the bench 4 times, we were already well ahead of Saints when he came on. He didn't rescue us vs Warrington at home (but Sinfield was poor when he started vs Wire in Round 5). We beat Hull at home when Burrow was in the halves and Sutcliffe was filling in for Hardaker at FB. And Cas at home we lost which I put down to GH refusing to move the Sunday game vs Wakefield forward even though we were then playing on Thursday and unsurprisingly looked like we could've done with an extra day or two.

I guess you missed the games Printer listed then?
Prior to injury he was OUR FORM HB simple as.

Agree with both those points. It would have been difficult enough for Sutcliffe if he wasn't coming back from a serious injury and the pack was actually playing well. McGuire really struggled when he came back after his knee reconstruct in 2011. Wasn't until near end of season he got back to his best.

I must have missed Sinfield coming off the bench to rescue the situation at Saints, when Sutcliffe created two tries in a dominant first half performance.

Sutcliffe is one of the comparitively few recent Academy graduates (of those allowed to make 1st grade) who should be persevered with. He needs a game managing, experienced half alongside him to take some of the responsibility away if he's going to develop into a quality running stand-off.

The cross field kick for Handley's third try was fantastic, Sutcliffe tormented the Saints left edge the entire game and should have been the man of the match.

Because the sun might shine today does not mean it will shine tomorrow. It shows a random example that does not take into consideration other important factors. In all Wakefield's wins since their change of coach their main two halfbacks (with Finn a successful kicker too) have been major factors as indeed they were when they beat us by 4 points.



Yet you still were happy to have both Sutcliffe and McGuire play together in the halfbacks! I cannot follow your logic Rhinoms. Sutcliffe would need to be along side Cooper Cronk to be effective as a 6. IMO he quite obviously should not play in a pivotal position (apart from perhaps fullback) as he is not a decision maker or a game changer. This does not mean he should not figure in the squad. I have said many times his skill set is better suited to centre and he has been useful as a bench utility player too.


Ok then for which position would you have recruited a leader and goal kicker.




What is you definition of numerous? and did you ever consider that by giving credit Mac is showing motivational management skills? It is quite usual in professional sport for the coach to allow the captain, senior players and assistant coaches to run parts of training sessions to give imput and practice among other things decision making and on field leadership. This in no way means Mac's role in our success is diminished as you have tried to insinuate.




Come on now Rhinoms he is hardly likely to say to the media that he is disappointed with the signings is he? He has to tow the company line and has to try and motivate the players is has got.




Who is responsible for the recruitment at Rhinos and the purse strings? Now I do not know the conversations between BM and GH regarding recruitment matters and neither does anyone else. So to keep asking for the coach to be sacked without this knowledge is unfair. Other clubs have recruited some quality at halfbacks in the same timescale and if necessary we should have been prepared to use the marquee budget if necessary to try and replace Sinfield's role in the side.

Now I do agree that despite the very serious and ongoing injury list (which I think is worse than most other clubs) we still should have collected more wins and put on better performances. But this has been down to the other major factors which is the loss of form of so many players and in particular the senior ones. Again form comes and goes with experience players and novices alike and then eventually magically returns too.

So I have not said it is simply a lack of quality at halfback but an accumulation of several factors which include

To be fair to McGuire it seems he still isn't fit yet but without a creative player our shape will never look right. Confidence is low but there were some better signs I felt against Salford. When Burrow went to acting half back we did at least cross the line three times and on another day would have scored three and won the game. Form has to return soon and with the all elusive confidence and momentum and then you get some run of the ball too. For a new coach to come in just when things are due to change seems unfair.




Or the ability to play to a game plan. I am sure dropping the ball over the line or dropping a high bomb was not in the game plan.



Their main goal kicking play-maker half back has played most if not all their games this season so not a fair comparison. Had we had McGuire all season I think we would have won at least enough to be ahead of them.

How he got in the team is irrellevant if as he did he was clearly worthy of that spot once in & he showed clearly he has enough to be a 6.
Also he only list that place due to serious injury not loss of form.

He definatley plays his best when he can focus on opening up defences instead of trying to move a team around. I never saw him play much in the academy but it seems to me that he is not a natural organisor and needs a halfback partner to help him out in that regaurd. That is why it is a little baffling to me that he hasnt played a full game next to Mcguire yet this season.
He has shown he has the ability to throw good passes and put in good kicks but only when the 7 and 9 is moving the team around effectively.

We must remember that Mcguire only really developed as an organisor when he was about 30.
Also I dont think Milford can organise much but he is still probably the best 6 in the world atm.

People say fullbacks are an extra half but in reality they have much less influence in attack and dont have to be nearly as creative.
Tomkins is a prime example of a young half who had a brilliant running game and a pretty good ability to read a defence. But at the age of 21 (sutcliffe's age btw) they decided to move him to fullback where he would have more space and less thinking to do instead of developing his ability to read defences and his kicking game.

In australia they do the opposite, players who are young come in with similar attributes to tomkins who play at fullback for a few years to adapt to the NRL but are then moved to 6 to give them MORE responsibility and develop the other aspects of being a half, such as Milford and Widdop.
And we still unsuprisingly cant beat the Aussies or NZ when they have their first choice halves.
They back their talented fullbacks and give them more responsibilty and we take responsibility off our talented halves.

Your organiser type of halfback is a rare beast as it is but even rarer now because teams are making calls on players at the age of 19 so many potential players are being lost before they've had a chance to finish their development.

There's been some discussion about this on the Bulls forum. There hasn't been a single decent British organising halfback to come through at that age since Bobbie Goulding. Almost all the British organising halfbacks of the past 10-15 years didn't become regulars until their early 20s. Deacon was 23, Long was 24.

I've a theory that it could be down to size. Those smaller lads aren't ready physically at 19 so get fewer chances unless they're some kind of prodigy. Even then they get moved e.g. to fullback so they're less of a defensive liability (Tomkins) or moved to be an impact player/dummy half (Burrow).

Juan, did Hardaker diddle your wife & is BMD your favourite uncle?

The trouble with too much favouritism &/or dislike is that it clouds judgements & encourages people to disregard your opinion on the grounds that it is the same old one-sided fare.

Hardaker is an infantile playboy (he wishes) who has an excellent running game, outstanding one-on-one defense & good handling of the high ball. These were the attributes which brought him the MOS award in 2015. His linking in the offensive line & passing are his weaknesses & he will have to improve on these aspects to become a truly great FB. He, like 95% of his colleagues, are suffering from poor form at the moment.

McDermott has shown that he can take a group of proven winners & keep them motivated enough to continue their winning ways. He has also introduced a sprinkling of talent (mostly from overseas or the academy) over his tenure with great success. The problem was always going to be when the proven winners & leaders started to disappear. He HAS had terrible luck with injuries the season so far, but there is nothing in the demeanour of the players to suggest that they know what to do about their current plight. Has BMD identified the CORRECT players to take on the leadership role? Has he identified the CORRECT game plans to see us through this tough time? Has he got the necessary leadership skills himself to impart wisdom/knowledge/inspiration to his troops?
Only GH & the players would be able to answer these questions, but the longer this spell goes on the more people (myself included) come to the conclusion that the answers may be NO.

It is no good just crying about our terrible injury list, or saying "Does BMD tell his players to drop the ball/give away penalties etc?". He is a supposed to be the leader & inspiration & I don't see that inherent in our play.

Many people said that once KS & JP left, that would be the acid test for BMD (or any coach for that matter). He hasn't started very well.

Have you seen Hardaker under the high ball lately - he spends more time shouting at Handley to catch it than actually attempting to catch it himself.

He puts others in a tough position because their approach to the catch is not ideal because Hardaker is in the ideal place and should grow some and catch the thing.