Apologies in advance for a bit of an 'I told you so' post. The writing was on the wall with Tomkins long before he arrived back in the country. I said at the time it was announced he was heading back to Wigan that he'd turn out to be a very expensive flop (which resulted in a fair few of your lot biting and claiming he'd be back to his best). You could tell from his form in the NRL that he'd lost some speed, strength and bottle - that arrogant swagger had gone as he wasn't able to run rings around terrible defences in the NRL, and he's never recovered from that.

A more worrying point in general is how far back yourselves, us (Leeds), Saints and Wire have slipped in terms of standards over the last few years. I've been saying for a couple of months that I think Leeds can actually win the comp, and whilst I'll very much enjoy it if they do, with the standard of the current Leeds team, it would be an absolute embarrassment to the game over here.

Well it clearly didn't do the right thing in that they have all so far, failed. Though as I said elsewhere Sam T and Burgess still have a chance to prove otherwise. And it is not hindsight if you think the policy blinded them from looking at other players or properly considering even if we needed any of them back. I think IL wanted to prove his strategy of getting players to sign a bit of paper that said they will return worked. I bet when these players became available he was delighted to be able to put this policy into action and there was no way they were not going to get signed.

When he first came up with the idea I thought it was daft because I assumed they would all be successful, earning a fortune and so we had seen the last of them in a Wigan shirt again. If they had been and yet had returned in top form it would have been a no-brainer to sign them but every single one bar TL came back under a cloud but we still signed them.

Hopefully this is a lesson learned and the club doesn't guarantee players who leave an easy way out and furthermore doesn't rush to give them one.

I think with the underperforming players, some are victims of our negative approach. Stick Tomkins and Budgie in that Cas side, with the way Cas have played and they would have both had an amazing season. It's the collective that has worked brilliant for Cas, Powell has a way he wants to play, the players enjoy it and so they buy into it 100%, one because its enjoyable, and two because it works. Our lot seem to half buy into it, probably because they're bored as fook and they know they're limiting their own options playing the same few plays each set. I'd be embarrassed to be that predictable and know how boring it is to watch.

When John Donahy was at Wigan, we were struggling. It was widely rumoured that the players, led by Shaun Edwards decided enough was enough and just ignored him and went on to do their own thing which was to throw the ball about and run teams ragged. They knew they could build up a massive lead and if they got tired before the end it wouldn't matter because they were so far ahead on the scoreboard.

Dorahy won the league and Challenge Cup but was sacked at the end of the season. (1992 I think it was).

Supposedly on the coach back from Wembley after we had won the Cup!

As to the players rebelling, not chance of that these days. Too many owe their careers to Wane and/or are his mate.

I don't think he'll thank them for what happened last weekend.

I'm not saying that was a rebellion, but it certainly reeked of 'we're not even going to try' ... and they must know that he's the one who ultimately will carry the can.

It did remind me of the infamous loss to Cas in the Regal Trophy (or it may have still been the JPS back then, can't remember) which if I recall correctly was also part of the Dorahy stint as coach. However I was meaning rebel as in chuck Wane's tactics out of the window and basically ignore him as Edwards & Co did.

No, you're right. I can't see any possibility of that happening.

Might just be my imagination but I'm convinced they did it last year at Wire after Ben Flower was sent off.
The team just seemed to say sod it and played like we all want to see them play.
Pretty sure after the match Tony Smith said his players didn't know how to handle it because they were all set up to defend against our usual tactics.

I agree mate. It was like the shackles were removed when Flower went off and same again for a few weeks after.

Maybe I'm being optimistic, but I only believe there are a few changes needed to improve.

Areas which need improving:

Sam's lost his pace. It's not coming back. When pace is gone, it's gone
Tommy is a terrible 7. Can't think of a worse 7 in SL. No game management, no kicking, no breaks the list goes on.
Pack, namely forwards need more grunt, more meters per game.
Lack of a kicker.

To improve:

Move Sam to 7. Looks deadly in the line. Can pass, and kick and has a great rugby brain.
Move Escare to FB, pace to burn, looked a threat attacking out-wide.
Escare to kick.
Retire Tommy, free up his cap space.
Move on FPN

Use the available cap to bring in a forward.

Other options:
Bring in Michael Gordon. At a loose end as Roosters are bring in Tedesco. Older, but still outstanding and is a great kicker.
Move on Joel Tomkins. Arguably Ben Flower. New blood needed in the pack.

I'd like like to see another centre. Competition for places is a must.

I agree with your changes however, I think that is all we can probably do in the short term. Longer term I think we need at least 5 or 6 new forwards. Our pack is the softest pack in the competition and non of our present front row can do more than 20 minutes at a time which is criminal. The recruitment of forwards since 2014 has been truly abysmal and whoever drove signings such as Powell, Pettybourne, Laukaki, should not be involved in any future recruitment because they plainly wouldn't know a decent forward if they kicked them in the nuts