The only indication of how good you are is where you finish in the table, cup, and playoffs. How many points you score in the process is irrelevant. Or are you suggesting that we're a 12th place side?

Warrington battered everyone few seasons ago and were that get them?? League leaders shield that's it.

I'm saying that without scoring a decent number of tries you won't be very high in the table. It's an indication of how good you are as a team. Find some examples of low scoring teams finishing near the top of the table

And 3 Wembley wins in 4 seasons. Disastrous for them

Did we score many points in 2006 when we finished 2nd in the league??

Still though. That's knock out rugby and yes they did play well. But point i'm trying to make is yes you can score tries and plenty of them like Warrington did. They finished top but still lost out in the play off's.

To the point though scoring tries is needed in games no doubt about it but a good defense is what wins them.

We could do with scoring a few more but as stated we should have won the other day after scoring 6 tries. I'm a firm believer that defence comes first as the most important aspect as if you defend well you have a chance to win most games. You can't expect to win too many games conceding 30 points as we have done in the last two.

Out of interest we scored an average of 4.7 points fewer than the SL champions last season and defended better than them. Leeds have proved it's about what you do at the business end of the season that counts - they've played SL a bit like a second challenge cup in recent seasons.

I don't disagree with any of that and the best defensive teams are also invariably the best attacking teams because they force errors and put the opposition under pressure.

If we'd scored 1 more try per game this season we'd be in 4th and would still only be the 4th highest try scoring team in SL

Totally Agree with that. All the top teams are very good defensively first and the good attack comes off the back of that. We didn't lose on Saturday because of our inability to attack (or goal kicks, technically yes we did...) but the loss came from us not being able to defend. Look at the Walker's (their 8 ) try he went through 2 or 3 players...really shouldn't be happening.

I don't know the actual stats and don't want to look but if you watch any NRL the top teams over there (Melbourne especially) build on a great defence. As Gentle says it is an attitude to defend...something we didn't have on Saturday but did about a month ago, which is why we were winning and were actually scoring points against better teams easier.

It certainly was/is attitude and in the Cas game we only defended badly for 20 mins. In the first half they only had 2 ptbs within 10 yards of our line and scored from a kick which doesn't indicate poor defence. It was our inability to hold the ball and create any attacking pressure in that first half that in the main cost us the match IMO. Second half that slackness continued and then for 5 or 6 back to back sets were rank poor defensively. So we lost our defensive attitude for 20 mins and had a poor attitude throughout the game in terms of respect of possession - lack of leadership on show didn't help either I thought.

This. We have been relying on our defence this season when we have beaten the top teams, meaning we don't have to score lots of tries. Our aggression in defence dropped, which is why we lost. Made it too easy for Cas to score.

However, I do agree that we should be more ruthless in the opposition's 20. I'm putting that down to our attack not being cohesive with Miller just arriving. Hopefully with game time it can improve.

It's a bad example to use the Cas game for this thread because it was Miller's first game. However, I think we would all agree we are relatively poor in this regard and that the answer doesn't appear to be obvious. I personally have reservations about Holdsworth (I know most will disagree) but I just don't think he does enough, the over used phrase 'he leads the team around the park well' doesn't wash with me. Dobson leads the team around the park brilliantly, so does Briers, Brough etc etc - it doesn't stop them causing an individual threat and running across the line, dummying, making breaks etc. He's an improvement, yes, but still don't think he's top drawer.

The other point I would make comes down to just drills/practice. In the warm up the other night, we were going through a number of set plays and we droped the ball a number of times (Holdsworth involved here too). This didn't bode well.
I think Wigan's success just doesn't come from quality players but how much work they do with the ball in training - I bet Wane has them practising their moves in their sleep. Their passing is so fast/crisp/accurate - this isn't by accident.

I'm pleased with PG - just throwing a couple of points in to the argument.

The only point i'd make in that regard and could be wrong myself. But ain't all the names you quoted scrum halves?? Holdsworth is our 6.

That is due to the play off system which doesn't automatically recognise the best team over a season. Warrington were undoubtedly the best side but a couple of poor games out of 30 and that's it, bad luck and timing can and does happen. Does anybody, apart from their own fans, really think Leeds have been the best side in the comp for the past 2 seasons?

Winning is ultimately what counts but you can improve your chances of doing so on a regular basis by scoring plenty and conceding few. Improving the odds in favour of winning doesn't of course guarantee victory every time but in the end a team that keeps scraping close wins is one that is saving up for a bad run in the future.

number doesn't matter, he's the organising playmaker

Briers is a 6 too