I'm actually not that gutted. I would have been gutted at this a few years ago but now I feel like we've been in four major finals, won three, lost one. Federer, Djokovic lose Grand Slam finals every now and then you just have to take it with dignity.

We have done well this year and you can't complain about Leeds winning today, they were the better team.

Last year was much more gutting than this but overall nothing has ever come close to the disappointment (for me) of losing the playoff to Hull in 2005 with Johns in our team, that was the worst ever day for me as a Wire fan.

The disappointing thing for me is that Leeds didn't need to play that well to win - much like our finals against them

Warrington definitely didn't reach their peak but maybe that's because Leeds didn't let them

Briers sadly didn't show up like I wanted him to. Even though I'm a Saints fan I would have loved to have seen him put on a great show in the biggest game of the year

I disagree. That was the first in a quartet of lows for me, the others being Huddersfield 2010, Leeds last year and now tonight. As each time we have got that little bit closer before being kicked in the teeth it has got that little bit harder to take too.

If I'm honest, although I did expect to win that Hull game, and believed Andrew Johns gave us a slight chance later on too, I didn't REALLY expect us to beat Saints, Leeds or Bradford and consoled myself with that. Similarly with Huddersfield 2010, yes I expected to win that game, and I had a dream of ending the hoodoo in the final game at Knowsley Road the following week, I knew that in all probability yet another defeat to Saints would have been on the cards as it was for Huddersfield.

Last year and this year were different from those two. I genuinely believed we could be champions and we aren't. And that hurts more than anything that has gone before it.

I endured years of Warrington mediocrity, but in truth defeats didn't hurt as much back then because they were expected. The concept of actually winning trophies was laughable, so failing to win them made very little emotional impact. I just turned up, watched the match, enjoyed a couple of pints and went home. Wins were obviously more enjoyable, but defeats were shrugged off and quickly forgotten about.

Now they hurt. Big time.

Yes, we could win it next year, or the year after. We could even find ourselves in a decade from now in a Leeds type position of winning six finals from seven appearances in nine seasons. On the flip side though, we might not win it at all, and the desperation to simply do it once is getting harder and harder to take with each passing failure to do so.

Gallows punk rock Yeah right.

Paul Wood tweeted he's sitting in hospital as I speak having treatment for a ruptured testicle, oh the glamour!
Briish Rugby League, best game in the world played by the best sportsmen in the world, and I'm glad I'm lucky enough to have been born into it

This.

Getting to the grand final itself was the major hurdle to overcome. We lost because of a lack of experience on that stage (whereas Leeds have it in bucketloads). We are still learning as a team and this was just another step on the ladder. Within the next five years we'll reach at least one more final, if not many more.

How does this thing of having to lose a final to learn how to win one work?

We didn't have to lose a Challenge Cup final to learn how to win one, we got to three and won them all. Leeds have lost six so how many do they need to learn to win one?

If we had beaten Leeds last year in the playoff but lost to Saints in the Grand Final, could that have been the difference that got us the extra 2 tries today?

In 2004 a young leeds team played their first grand final against an experienced bulls team. They won!

So this thing of having to lose one to win one isn't true, it's just there for consolation because losing the 'first one' is a b*tch. Losing it isn't so bad when you've had recent wins. But the first one, it's a kick in the nuts.

I'm okay about it really. We didn't deserve to win.

The game was very poor for me. Neither team played well, we just knocked it on a lot and offered Leeds good field position.

If either team had turned up at their best they would have trounced the other side. Leeds were poor-ish, Wire were shyite.

In 2009 we were fortunate enough to have played Huddersfield, who had a similar lack of finals experience themselves, so that helped us get a grip on the occasion. Leeds, on the other hand, haven't won the cup since 1999, and repeated finals defeats can take their toll on a side. Likewise, their repeated grand final victories allow them to be in their element when another final comes, as they know how to handle the occasion perfectly. For me, it is similar to our own hoodoo against Saints; after one win, we were subsequently able to rack up several.

Can't agree with this......It was a good, tight game of rugby, between two well matched sides. The only difference being Kevin Sinfield.

Put simply, if you were giving marks out of 10 for each player's performance, 33 players would have got 6 or 7 out of 10, Sinfield was a definite big 9.....None of our players raised their game to the level needed to win a Grand Final, or more importantly, Leeds did not allow us to raise our game.

First rule of Rugby League tactics is to stifle the opposition, if you do that you are 80% there.....We didn't stop Sinfield and it sadly told.

Wewere just trumped by a more enthused, more experienced Leeds side. Sorry pal, but I have to disagree with your assessment there.

To me the Wire didn't play thebest we have seen but Leeds didn't allow us and credit to them for what they have achieved. Soreline wise the game was balanced until the last 10 mins when they pulled away. So a tight intense game, but to say Leeds were poor and Wires were , sorry have to disagree.

You just have to read threads from neutrals and they were calling it a brilliant, immense game best GF for years etc.

Were were there, just not good enough.

Thought Leeds were pretty good and stifled Wire when they needed to. Leeds were more composed on the day and won the battle up front over the course of the 80 mins.