redjonn

Without being inside the club its hard to answer. Personally observing from outside I get the sense that the whole setup of the club is stale. More or less the same board, senior management/administration of the club seems in aspic to me and new blood has been needed to refresh the whole fabric.

Hard to disagree with anything of your comments. Your last paragraph shouldn't be forgotten too easily as the team did well and played very well to get to the grand final and maybe if Sezzer had played, whom was playing very well at the time, they may have had a closer game. Never-the-less did OK in that final. As such I would give him another season rather than start again. I think he needs to look at his supporting cast of coaches and maybe bring additional support/replace which is a key aspect of being head coach. My strongest criticism of him would align with your pre-season comments which seemed to be around getting versatility into the team. It back fired in starting the season poorly, resulting in loss of confidence and subsequently have too much to do to get into play-offs which meant having more mental pressure with must win games. That early season start made it so difficult with other teams having improved from previous seasons. I would hope he has learned but the previous season and turning the team around to produce excellent performances to the play-offs earns him sufficient time of next season for me. Not to forget the complete demolition of Wigan in the play-off last season which led to many disgruntled Wigan supporters suggesting Peet was not up to the job. In other words we as fans often haven't a clue and like to thrash-out without much thought at times. I think you have hit the spot in your comments.

Yep, would agree. Only mitigation was the heat. That is wigan control of game and pinning leeds back had a heavy energy sapping impact. After 25 to 30mins leeds were spent and the tiredness impacted their play. Yep same conditions for wigan but they through their excellent control and play didn't have the same energy sapping struggle. So I was not surprised by the 50pt margin. It was clear around that 25min stage leeds were shot and staring a big defeat in my observation. Huge problem was not having the capability of breaking wigan stranglehold on them. A better kicker with a longer kick range may have helped, maybe hooley should have been used as he has a boomer of a kick. Again as you say...they were dreadful...

It was a poor display from Leeds for sure. The game was lost around the 25min mark with leeds energy levels depleted. For me wigan had a good game plan and executed it well in those first 25 to 30 mins. Smith had oodles of time for his field kicking. He kicked early in tackle count. The kicks pinned leeds back and they had to kick from deep. Unfortunately the field kicking from both martin or sinfield were poor. With wigan on first tackle hitting close to halfway. Thus leading to attacking kicks and the initial trys. After about 25mins of struggling to make yards and the defensive effort they lacked energy and game was gone. From then on wigan just picked them off with a very professional rl performance full of confidence. Making easy yards and patiently awaiting the gaps in leeds defence. Leeds probably only had two moments of attacking play in wigans last 20 in the first half. One of which summed up leeds attacking decision making of the whole season. That is cam smith receives ball on 5th tackle running across just in front of wigan try line defence... the wigan player moves to the right exposing a big gap between two defending players just in front of try line. Any other play maker in another team would have done a grubber kick to force goal line drop out to build pressure. Smith just passes to player in little space and the wigan defence easily close the play down. For me that just summed leeds all season decision making. Sorry to be long winded but just looking for an analysis of why leeds performed so badly whilst accepting they fielded a weakened team.

yep, would agree it was an incorrect call in my opinion. Their again it wouldn't fit the narrative of Saints always getting the rub of the green from Ref's, and whomever the opposition, in this case Leigh, getting duff calls that caused loss of game.

you could be right and the club have underachieved for a while now. Never-the-less one could look at say Catalan who are losing quite a few players at end of season or even Saints whom lose a lot of youngsters given other comments in this thread have focused on losing players come through the academy. A natural aspect for clubs that produce players but salary cap stops you keeping everyone you may wish. Maybe some of those early career decisions Leeds may of chosen the wrong one's to keep. My perspective would be that the club have more-or-less had the same people at board and department/administration level for a good while. Sometimes you need new blood to come in. Plus not keeping ex-players around unless specific coaching jobs, all-be-it shows good loyalty.

well yes, but they are not changing the play on the park... so I don't think that is a comparable example between the codes changes.

How about using the old lights from Blackpool...now they have laser lights...

not been doin any book keeping or accountancy work then.... its fun to manipulate them so you get the answer yer want... and then hit the pub chuckling to yerself...

chuckle... given it has been a lengthy discussion in various threads, we still get the same question and we all still give differing answers

see Les Tonks comment and the italics from the img doc above so only if that grade B is higher points than the other grade B.... reading the italics

ok... but are you certain... as you say I thought...

Chuckle... I'm sure your right, although I think many may say... "yer what.... what grading system"

The key is treating people with respect on the pitch and off. That doesn't mean a coach should not be able to query an aspect of referring. It should never be personal but surely if the sport is confident in itself, has robust procedures in place, treats all people with respect including administrators doing their best we should be able to handle and discuss application of rules. e.g. the ruck/PTB in most games is a mess and why that needs addressing, surely that is something a coach should be able to highlight in a press conference if appropriate. In addition, If a clear error like a missed foot in touch or a ball does not go through the posts surely whilst acknowledging we are all human and hence are errors made never-the-less it would be odd if that was not in a press conference, especially as journalist would be asking. It would surely demonstrate a weakness of the sport if it was not felt able to be discussed. It is about showing respect and how the situation is discussed plus being supportive rather than a blanket ban or criticism. Their is no excuse for anyone targeting an individual say on social media or other media or wherever, key their is the RFL, coaches, players and rugby community singling out that behaviour as unacceptable. It would seem odd that in a Televised game and an obvious error was made by the officials it wasn't mentioned and subsequently a question to a coach. How that was dealt with by that coach would determine how well he handled it with respect to the split second decisions the ref/officials have to make and how that can be improved by some form of assistance or different approach, e.g. whether the NRL has a good solution that could be implemented here....

Long discussion around this before, I thought the conclusion was that a grade B promotion candidate would replace a grade B relegation candidate dependant on having a higher grading points than the other B.

Of course ref should be shown respect for a difficult job and for sure it starts within a club and their players & coaches. All teams are similar with how they are trying to pressure ref's into decisions, e.g. hookers/dummy halfs at most PTB wafting their arms in the air... again all teams and that includes the game I watched on Sunday when both teams did similar antics, yep both teams. This translated into the crowd with both sets of fans calling out, getting more excited at the perceived injustice on decisions. This including the normal off side and forward calls, although at times a very over the top screaming and standing up shouting at ref - again Huddersfield and Leeds. I even had the Huddersfield fans sitting behind me accusing the ref of penalising Huddersfield just to even up the penalty account as they couldn't see anything incorrect that their team did to justify a penalty or 6 again. As I say all teams and sets of fans are as guilty. Not helped by coaches as someone has said, although they also unsurprisingly forget their own coach comments over the season. I mean taking Huddersfield and Leeds as examples, Watson is for sure not a role model for not criticising the ref, in fact didn't he criticise the decision to sin bin one of his players in said game this Sunday. If we are going to have a discussion on how to best support refs it starts with honesty and not just blind bias to cry out a club one may dislike. If we really wanted to support ref's we would try and limit law interpretation that ends up not applying the rules and thus too much subjectivity in the interests of keeping the game flowing. We would penalise players more both in game and after games with bans when they are taking actions to clearly gain attention to what they perceive is a foul of some sort, i,e, wafting yer arms at the rucks/PTB's etc., etc, etc... introduce a system that coaches and clubs get heavy financial penalties too. It will not happen as those amongest the biggest moaners will be the fans if laws/rules are always applied and not ignored for the cause of game flow. On and yep get rid of the six again as that is one set of rules that is highly subjectively.

wasn't making anything out as unprovoked gesture as I have no background to what you refer to.. jI was just watching what was happening from Pryce, it was as you say the not the best thing for a player to be doing... Not sure Austin would have made the difference, Leeds with or without him seem to lack someone to put more control/rugby thinking into the players. One part of the game in second half was very chaotic from both teams. Each playing more on emotional effort than clear thinking and from Leeds perspective amplified by Newman. It needed someone to provide more composure into either team as they would have more easily won the game. or in Leeds case to have won the game. It's probably symptomatic of why both teams are sitting lower down in the table.

yep saw that part, but you missed the other gesture later with two fingers in each hand with an up and down gesture... one can call it friendly fun or some may call it baiting... just not needed... comes on top of both teams as is per normal nowadays to almost query every decision with wafting arms calling for decsions. thought he was being an idiot, especial as it was during a period with both teams being emotional engaged (more aggressively) and forever questioning the ref, which can and does enrage fans and lead to elements acting stupid...

Just to even up... don't forget the big cheer from hudds fans when bentley first hit the ground... ok their was good reaction when it became clear it may be serious... so yep many fans of all clubs can be crass... Oh and talking about crass behaviour, who was the Huddersfield player trying to antagonise the Leeds fans with his two fingers waving at them... Anyway Huddersfield better team on the day...some head scratching decision either way which adds for discussion... Leeds very poor except brief spells, Huddersfield a little better...but both seem poor teams currently. Though Connor had a big influence good game management kicks too to enable to relieve pressure and regroup when under the cosh... turned the momentum.

time will tell but Leeds sure needed more cover at full back and hopefully someone with speed... Myler I like and for sure is always on someone's shoulder but even though as a result he goes through the line, he certainly is easy to catch, so to speak...

We all know that the NRL is a higher performing league than our SL, we know that any player (or coach) would rather have a starting place or regular game place in the NRL on a higher salary,. That is they would not be coming to the SL otherwise. So yeah this player may not be a top NRL talent at the peak of his game so yeah every NRL player here is of course rubbish and should have on his shirt not good enough for the NRL whenever he plays. Hopefully that rubbish NRL player turns out to be a good SL player worthy of whatever his salary as many have been and many have not. Time will tell. Anyway we further reinforce that our game is of poor quality compared to NRL, that any player that come here is not good enough for NRL and that most of our home grown players that have not been offered a contract by an NRL club have been deemed not good enough for the NRL. So lets just suck it that we know we ain't as good as the NRL and try and enjoy our less than super SL anyway - I do.

will ULEZ be impacting, that is is it within the charging scheme.

A good comparison may be now tv... 11.99 per 24 hours, which I pay to watch a SL game. I don't watch anything else but managed two games this weekend for that 11.99. Or.... 33.something, I think 33.99 for a month access. I,m sure I ain't the only one using a 24hour access of 11.99 for just one game I want to watch.

yep its certainly in vogue... but in some cases its dreadful... maybe start a vogue to be back in the studio for some parts when doing the anaiysis. Although to be fair you dont tend to get much analysis except from the Wells section and Wilkins. Incidentally the Wells bit with Tomkins was excellent, a pity it couldn't continue as it was getting to be really interesting and had great explanations by Tomkins - hopefully he keeps in the game upon his retirement.

I would agree... it came out of his hands. It seemed to me that the V/R was looking for reasons to give the try... as in his first replay view it showed it more clearly and I thought its a No Try... but then the second viewing angle made it more uncertain and no reason to over rule ref... he should have kept to the first view angle. As a matter of interest the wakey No Try...The V/R seemed more to be looking why not to give a Try... his first views gave him no reason to overrule ref... but then he said something like ... just caught glimpse player to the side, can we replay again. Anyway I thought the major difference was Cas were better in their attacking plus I thought got away somewhat with their slowing the ruck/PTB, should have been plenty more six again's... another ref I think may have been more strict...