In your opinion. Not in mine. You pick a side to try an win each game match by match and this should include flexibility not wooden fixed attitudes.



Have you never considered that there may have been some doubts to the fitness of another back? But I guess the game plan was based on our need to score tries against Warrington to have any chance and although Ablett has done a good job as a replacement centre his lack of speed is a handicap at centre and Wembley could have exposed this even more. Nantwich correctly suggested this plan before the match and I agreed with the logic at the time. If as I suggest the plan was to bring Keinhorst on before half time (the same way we did with Burrow last season when we needed to concentrate on defence early on, and to give the young lad time to settle nerves) you can hardly claim Ablett would be drained when asked to move into the back row

Had you not spotted that we use Burrow in a way that best uses his talents whether he starts or comes on at 9? This means he is not worn out with heavy centre field defence and opposition cannot target to run at him to slow him down as they once did. It gives him a free ranging role that has been so successful for both him and the side. Playing a defender at 13 is meant to cover the tackles usually done by a traditional 9.



I disagree. Clarkson offers nothing with ball in hand and Ablett moving into the pack offers as good defence and better go forward. There was a case to play Moore but only instead of one of the other props. In hindsight Clarkson would have been better than Bailey but that is just hindsight.



Webb had ruled himself out of selection with his bad discipline the other week as you well know. If you care to read my post pre match you will see that I agreed with the Nantwich logic of picking Keinhorst but stated it was risky, I also said I would take the risk and pick Webb (over Keinhorst on the bench)



Yes in the pre KO build up.

The case was first muted by Nantwich and agreed by me the day before (I think it was) The BBC comments confirmed that was the Leeds dressing room plan.



The huge downpour delayed his introduction as not the best time to go for the expansive game. His delayed appearance was not critical. However what was absolutely crucial was the spate of bad discipline in the 2nd half that handed momentum and field position to Warrington. So our backs spent their time retreating with no supply of good ball and we had no chance to see what Keinhorst could do.




Well they were wrong weren't they? It didn't suit Leeds! And as I have previously said the bad weather caused Sinfield to go for the 2 instead of 6 just before half time which IMO sent the wrong message to Warrington

I can give you 35, 38, 24, 24 and 38 reasons why it hasn't caught on.

Leeds defensive tactics and structures under McDermott remain a mess and the players continue to look confused.

I thought you usually regarded much of Nantwich's output as risible nonsense? No offence Nantwich.

I recorded the game on the BBC HD Channel (Sky 143 I think it is - I presume the content is the same as the ordinary BBC output) Jonathan Davies said almost nothing during the build up. He said 'Yes' when it was stated he played at Wembley with Widnes and moments later said words to the effect that the possibility of playing in a Challenge Cup Final at Wembley had inspired him to change codes. That litererally was it - not a word concerning the game to come let alone the surprise to many inclusion of somebody with close to zero 1st grade experience. The build up was around 35 minutes in duration and his next comment was literally on the first tackle after the game had kicked off.

I therefore don't believe (unless you can prove otherwise) that Jonathan Davies said any such thing to ratify your claim that the intention had been to introduce Keinhorst any earlir than McDermott did.

There was no need for a coach's well made game plan to be blown off course by the weather as the weather was as predicted. To believe your scenario either McDermott didn't know the forecast (I don't believe that's possible in this day and age) or he never intended to introduce Keinhorst until he actually did so on 56 minutes in which case underutilising the potential of the bench.

As you like to rely on BBC 'expert' remarks for support here is an actual one from Brian Noble pre-match

This.


... and this.

The defence has been lacking most of this season and last.
That is down to to the coaching staff.
Also .. if an ex-prop can't figure out what's wrong in the forwards (and, while we're at it, an ex-hooker can't figure out we need a specialist hooker or should be playing our one borrowed specialist hooker at 9), then we might as well forget it.

This one has frustrated me all season.wether Mac playing Burrow from the bench and bringing him into the game when forwards tired during the playoffs last season was by chance, or a tactical stroke of genius i dont know but it worked a treat.He was devestating at times and i thought it would be the way we would use robbie from then onwards, but he has more often than not been used as starting hooker and IMO it makes him less effective and Leeds as a team.

Lunt has been steady, and i have nothing against him but does he offer anything more than McShane who has done a good job since getting a run of games at Widnes?

I hope Mac recalls him and shows some faith next season by starting him at hooker and reverts to Burrow as impact off the bench which is clearly IMO the best way of using him.

Edited : i typed Burrows!

Our defense was pretty poor under Bluey in 2010 too, but I'd have expected a new coach to sorted it by now

i can't honestly see anythings been sorted out. the ageing forwards, defence or attack. it all seems an absolute shambles

Defence is twenty percent structures, 80 percent desire and ability.

The first part of the 80 percent may not be lacking, but there are some players who no longer have the ability to get themselves in the right place at the right time simply because their legs have gone.

While you could argue that some would be more effective in a different structure, i.e. Sinfield's lack of pace would not be as exposed if he defended in the middle channel, when you're talking about your starting props there is nowhere else they can go irrespective of structure.

I don't believe I have ever said such a thing. Can you prove I called nantwich's output "risible nonsense" ? For a keeper of records I thought you claimed to be accurate.

I will always agree with a sensible rugby opinion particularly if it is a positive one which explains why I find yours a bit contrived and tedious.



Well I watched on normal BBC and heard the comment expressed in their build up just before the game.




Are you saying the fweather orecast was precisely to the minute then? I didn't know that was possible these days either. However what you believe is of little consequence as it appears to come from your keyboard coaching manual.

Sorry Juan, I'm with tvoc on the selection of Keinhorst. Its madness to PLAN to move a centre. Either Ablett's the centre or Keinhorst is, and a complete waste of a bench spot to do otherwise. Even more risble when you consider Keinhorst's complete lack of game time and the fact that so far he's hardly shown flashes of a young Schofield or Newlove - which at least would make it understandable to pick him. It smacks of a coach trying to be clever for its own sake.

I also agree that if Burrow is going to play hooker it has to be off the bench. We're starting with a jack-in-the-box whose main strength is wrongfooting tired defenders when the opposition is fresh, then putting on a plodder when the defence may be tiring. Again, a tad bonkers IMO.

As it was our defence was dreadful (and looking very very lazy including early on), our attack seemingly clueless when the game was in the balance, and our bench almost laughably poor. All those issues except lack of any impact on the bench point to coaching - as does Wire's far better performance.

The concern i had about the possiblity of Keinhorst's selection at Wembley was that come the match i wasn't sure McDermott would see his risk through. I remember earlier on in the season when Liam Hood was given very brief cameos against Castleford and Warrington because McDermott was worried about putting him on too early. 2 of Keinhorst's 3 apperances so far have seen him come on just after the 30 mins mark so when JJB limped off just after the half hour mark on Saturday that was the logical point imo to put on Keinhorst and switch Ablett to the second row.

Instead he went for a hooker in Lunt, now i don't know what the gameplan was in regards to when to introduce Lunt and who for but i doubt it was for JJB after 32 mins. With the rain coming down too, not too much ball would be going out to the centres or wings so he wouldn't of faced an immediate bombardment on his introduction and eased into the atmosphere of a CC Final slightly before regrouping at halftime instead of having to sit through that wondering when or if he is going to get on. Seemed to me right then that McDermott was worried about when to throw Keinhorst into the action and that was the problem with that selection.....you can't have anyone in your 17 that you're worried about using, especially in a final.

Seemed to me that McDermott saw the conditions and figured an extra forward on the field at that time made more sense than taking one off and bringing on an outside back. Lunt has played plenty in the back row during his time both with Leeds and at the Giants, in the same sort of role that Buderus played towards the back end of last season when Burrow came off the bench.

Exactly. The true explanation of the regular season defensive shortcomings, dismissed by many as a lack of effort, was very apparent on Saturday. Maybe a new team of fitness coaches could improve matters; more likely many of the lads are now past the point where they're able to respond.

This is a spot on view.

And is one of the reasons why I have a problem with Delaney and JJB. I fully accept that Delaney's "stats" for example look pretty impressive at times. But what fails to be ackowledged from "stats" is the space around him when defenind, and the number of times he can not fill in, resulting in breaks been made.

Those same legs, also fail to move when actually put in space himself.

I think you're missing a few things there. There is a lot more that can be done in team organisation to make a team more effective.
Structure goes a lot further than people realise:
"Formation" - i.e. who's where in the line. (I expect to see more teams start playing their hooker wide by the way as we see more lightweight hookers and more additional props/2nd rows being used at loose)
Familiarity with that formation and knowing the habits and abilities of the players around you.
Alignment - inside/outside and where we do what in the line, and where we leave the space (the defensive line will have at least one less player than the attacking team)
Coverage - wingers or someone else scraping behind the line, who and when and why.
Changing any of the above according to field position - both horizontally and vertically.
Familiarity with opponents:
Individually - how they step, how they carry.
As a team - what moves are run, have we practiced against those moves?

Beyond that then, there's the individual and combination technique, especially in tackling. After all, when Warrington caught us on our right, it wasn't really any of the tactical stuff above, it was beating us in the carry in the middle and getting a quick PTB against a dented line, that didn't allow us to get much of the above into play prior to Warrington getting the ball into play again.

Most of the time, when a defence gets exposed, it's the play before you need to look at to understand why.