How much you wanting for Clark? Poor lad must be knackered playing for your bunch. Your Bubble has severely burst. Cheers sandow for doing the team talk for us.

Penny took the ball up, plenty of times on the first tackle (when the ball had been kicked dead by Leeds) and had equalled Sims' efforts, in the amount of metres gained/tackles bust.....judge from that, what you will

I think that was a different problem. Earlier in the season we seemed to have the players and the staff falling out, people weren't putting the effort in. Tonight they did, they just didn't have enough left in them to make it work.

Can't say I agree with you on those names, not all of them anyway, but that's your opinion. The biggest question is who do you replace them with? You think we can drop two props, when we're already short, and magic some better ones out of thin air?

I think it is evident from the strange looking team sheet for the game that maybe TS has had to scrape the barrel to put a team out tonight. We were overwhelmed by a team at the top of their game & i think the game provided a good argument for the theory of needing experience to win games more so than youth.

I agree with you on the youth point, king and philbin looked well short tonight, and Wilde was a passenger, but in no way are they poor, it's just tonight V a rampant Leeds team, they shouldn't have been anywhere near the starting 17, but the squad is battered at the min, and all these calls for props, there are none, next season will be hill Simms England , and another, how's about a decent forwards coach, then we wouldn't need to be hunting anyone, just developing what we have,,
The super 8 high intensity games to finish season off can only be won by sides with strength in depth, and luck by how many injuries they have
It's only going to get worse as these crunching games continue one,,

When Wire beat Leeds in both regular season matches even though they were not cricket scores, we were WELL beaten. Wire came up with a game plan that nullified us and we never looked like getting anything out of either game; well done TS and the team.

(As regards to last nights game) all I seem to have read on here is how many forward passes, off-sides etc,etc the ref let Leeds get away with. This coupled with Wire generally having such "bad luck" as well. Mmm.

Have you read any of the posts in this thread?

Wire beat Leeds because BMc rested Sinfield and Spelled Burrow against us so he could blood Sutcliffe with experience. BMc found himself fortunate because even though Leeds lost, so did all the teams just under them.

Sky Sports seem to think he was dropped because of form, dont kid yourself.

Leeds were still top or second even though they lost 6 out of 8 games. So BMc continued blooding Sutcliffe until the point it mattered, when both Burrow and Sinfield return to major roles and duly won.

Since Sutcliffe has been injured I don't recall them losing a game with BMc forced to play Sinfield.

Actually, from Tony Smith downwards the vast majority of online comments are about how good Leeds were and how poor Wire by comparison.

He scored two good tries last night, ran in hard, took a good share of the work and defended with enthusiasm. He even got to Hardaker (too late ) after everyone else missed him. He deserves his spot in this team, maybe not the one of 2011, but then, few of these players would make that side.

I think the most telling stat was the areas of our PTBs vs Leeds' that Sky showed at HT.

We had no meaningful territory. You could could count on one hand the number on PTBs we had within Leeds' 20, which is a shame, as it'd have been nice to have seen our new HB with more ball in hand in a dangerous area, rather than having to kick from deep so often.

Leeds' bench was far superior to ours, and at the first set of interchanges, they brought on on Leuluai and Delaney. We brought on Roy, Wilde and King. It's telling that we conceded 14 very quick points as soon as we'd made our changes.

Singleton, Delaney, Leuluai > Roy, King, Wilde.

I maybe deluded,but i honestly think that what has dealt us a major blow is the lack of a reserve set up which has meant that over the last couple of years many promising players from all the clubs have been lost to the game because there has been nowhere for them to move to from the under 19s age group.Hopefully ,if the idea of a reserve team is resurrected then promising players will once more have another tier to progress through before being thrown into superleague. Injury wise we seem to be suffering for whatever reason,but you have to take your hat off to Brian Mc for managing his team to be ready for the play offs...but isn't that what management is all about ? All our rivals have had the same "opportunity" to pick up injuries but seem to be coping better...do we have a conditioning problem in the camp ? Finally, i think two players who have been missed are Wood & Higham for big game stability & experience.

I think you have a very good point ninearches certainly not deluded, you have been constant with your A team campaign and have a valid point, not only are young players being being thrown in at the deep end they are having to do it while carrying knocks or returning from injury, of course this is inevitable with our present injury crisis but having an A team would help with conditioning, confidence, experience and general development.

A team games would be a step forward, looking at someone like kevin penny ,to come in cold and be catching big punts is not easy ,he needs lots of practice in a competiveness game environment

Considering we've been called "Dad's army" in the past, the average age against Leeds rounded up was 25. I do feel a reserve grade is needed as you're expecting players to come in after not playing, or playing 1 game at a lower level like Rhys Evans had.

The team was made up from;

8 players under 22.
6 players 25 - 28
3 over 30.

A young side can learn from the experience, look at what a young England cricket side has now done after being battered previously.