This is why I never thought Warrington looked like winning. You can throw out all the - admittedly impressive - stats you want, but if you are making more meters than Leeds then dropping the ball before you get a chance to deploy your set play then it's irrelevant (which you allude to to be fair to you). Leeds were more clinical with the posession they had, and that's been the case in their last three matches. In the Leeds/Bradford match at one point the 'Key Performance Indicators' showed the Bulls should have been winning by a couple of scores when they were behind!
You watch Wire more often than me, so you know what they are capable of, but going statsless and watching the flow of the game, I've seen enough RL for it to seem to me they were never destined for the two points. I will freely admit that Leeds weren't all that - although I am always willing to admit that, so might not be worth too much!
I have no issues with views of the likes of yours and Hindle's - I have issues with the experts who were using every superlative under the sun to describe Leeds' performance, which the coaches went on to describe as no more than 'solid'. McDermott wasn't happy and Smith was not far off critical of Leeds, saying that McDermott was being polite with his comments.
Next scene - cut to O'Connor saying 'Leeds were exceptional'.