Sun 2 May: SL: Huddersfield Giants v Leeds Rhinos KO 15:00

[GUBRATS]

20 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

With that haircut? Not at all

We'll pay to get it cut 

[Old Frightful]

2 hours ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

It's sad that I don't know this, but what is the playoff structure again this year?

 

1 hour ago, DimmestStar said:

Well from your point of view same as every year. Hull 'FC' may or may not scrape in and if they do, get knocked out early.

My word...I thought I'd have a look through the Hudds v Leeds match thread to see what has been said but I didn't expect this.

Has Wellsy run over your cat or summat?

[DimmestStar]

Your fellow Girlie Bird asked about the play offs so I told him how it is. Did I hit a nerve?

Only listened on radio to the Hudds Leeds game but it seemed a bit dull.

[GeordieSaint]

Little worried about Leeds. Not in terms of relegation; they are far too good for that. It’s more their transition from the great Leeds side of the Sinfield/Peacock/McGuire et al era. Appreciating they won the Cup last year, but bar the blip in 2017, they’ve been awful in the league. The likes of Saints/Wigan since 1996 have had the odd season where they have really underperformed, but they’ve usually been challenging for the title each year. Leeds are miles off and have been for a while. You can’t just blame it on injuries. When do you start to point the finger at the hierarchy beyond the coaching team? 

[meast]

5 hours ago, Chris22 said:

With the injuries Leeds have, this was a game that was very important for Huddersfield to win.

Whether it was by 1 point last second drop goal or more comfortable, the prize was the same.

A relieving win for Huddersfield. Haven't seen or listened to the game but with Sezer scoring all bar 1 of the points, it shows how crucial he is.

Leeds weren't that bad, they had a relatively strong side out, albeit with a makeshift half back pairing, but they had enough in that side to win games.

It seemed like both teams wanted the other to win at times, it was ridiculous.

As for Sezer, he just puts the finishing touches to everything created by the good work of the likes of Gaskell, Cogger, AOB, Edwards etc.

[meast]

5 hours ago, Davo5 said:

Leeds look genuine relegation candidates although the stitch up of Leigh might save them.

Leeds have too many good players to be involved in the scrap at the bottom.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

4 hours ago, DimmestStar said:

Well from your point of view same as every year. Hull 'FC' may or may not scrape in and if they do, get knocked out early.

Weren't we one win from the final last year?

Not sure if you're a Rovers fan, but if you are, commenting on recent success in the playoffs is a strange attack strategy?

[Old Frightful]

2 hours ago, DimmestStar said:

Your fellow Girlie Bird asked about the play offs so I told him how it is. Did I hit a nerve?

Not at all.

It's nice that my lot is involved in the play offs towards the end of most seasons, at least that means we're not far off the silverware, even if the chance of actually beating Wigan or Saints in the final is remote.

I won't bother trying to hit a nerve with your good self by asking when the last time Hull KR were seriously close to being involved in the RL play offs in any of it's formats as you might not have been born then.

 

 

[BrisbaneRhino]

Leeds do have a fair few players out, but the players we did have were awful at some of the basics.  

I was thinking about the whole '10 players out thing' and while its numerically correct it also exaggerates things a bit. Of our first choice 17 we have Myler, Newman, Gale and Eastmond (maybe) in the backs and Tetevano out.  In the backs we have 4 halfbacks out, but in reality only 2 of them would ever play. Walker should just be ignored for any of these discussions because we have to cope without him all year. Holroyd, McLelland and Alex Sutcliffe are injured, but none would be definitely in the first 17 (Holroyd maybe but maybe not).

Being down to the bones at halfback would ruin most teams. But I'm not convinced any of Eastmond, Lui or McLelland would make a huge difference either. They're just not that good. None of them have organisational skills or quality kicking game.

Bottom line is at some stage even if injuries are having an understandable effect, the players that are available - and by extension the coaching staff - need to do better. I'm also far from convinced that even when fully fit we have a 17 that can really challenge for the Comp. Too many average players in the squad again, which after the 'rebuild' of the last couple of years leaves us still a long way short.

[Faithful1865]

10 hours ago, Old Frightful said:

Not at all.

It's nice that my lot is involved in the play offs towards the end of most seasons, at least that means we're not far off the silverware, even if the chance of actually beating Wigan or Saints in the final is remote.

I won't bother trying to hit a nerve with your good self by asking when the last time Hull KR were seriously close to being involved in the RL play offs in any of it's formats as you might not have been born then.

 

 

You've a short memory OF. Don't you recall the playoffs to actually stay in Superleague. You know, the one where Josh Griffin and his gang visited Craven Park and sent them off to the championship, where, of course, they've been before recently.

[graveyard johnny]

if leeds are pinning their hopes for the future on injury prone aging halfbacks and journeymen its gonna be a long time between drinks 

[daz39]

5 hours ago, BrisbaneRhino said:

Leeds do have a fair few players out, but the players we did have were awful at some of the basics.  

I was thinking about the whole '10 players out thing' and while its numerically correct it also exaggerates things a bit. Of our first choice 17 we have Myler, Newman, Gale and Eastmond (maybe) in the backs and Tetevano out.  In the backs we have 4 halfbacks out, but in reality only 2 of them would ever play. Walker should just be ignored for any of these discussions because we have to cope without him all year. Holroyd, McLelland and Alex Sutcliffe are injured, but none would be definitely in the first 17 (Holroyd maybe but maybe not).

Being down to the bones at halfback would ruin most teams. But I'm not convinced any of Eastmond, Lui or McLelland would make a huge difference either. They're just not that good. None of them have organisational skills or quality kicking game.

Bottom line is at some stage even if injuries are having an understandable effect, the players that are available - and by extension the coaching staff - need to do better. I'm also far from convinced that even when fully fit we have a 17 that can really challenge for the Comp. Too many average players in the squad again, which after the 'rebuild' of the last couple of years leaves us still a long way short.

This is an excellent point and one that is used way too often by players, coaches, media and fans.

X team had X amount of players out and that's why they lost, never mind that most teams have decent back ups and most teams will put out a decent 17 on game day that should always give their best and not use the injuries excuse to ease off or put in a less than 100% performance, it's almost as if players and coaches think they can have a day off or you get bonus points for playing well if you have injuries.

Every team has injuries, every team has disruption at some point, every team has to throw youngsters in.

Look at Huddersfield in the last couple of years, we have had terrible injury issues but have also blooded the likes of the Senior twins, Jake Wardle, Matty English, Ollie Wilson, Olly Russell, Sam Hewitt, Ronan Micheal, Jon-Luke Kirby, most of whom are now either established at our club or on loan at SL/Champ clubs.

Even yesterday we were missing Golding, Cudjoe, Senior, both Wardle's - a large chunk of our backline but for some reason they don't get mentioned because we don't make a fuss and just get on with what we have.

Leeds have injuries but so do other teams, at the end of the day they also have some very average players who aren't playing very well and in my eyes a very average coach and are struggling because of that mainly.

[graveyard johnny]

if wakey dont beat this leeds rabble this week they may as well give up

[Chrispmartha]

21 minutes ago, graveyard johnny said:

if wakey dont beat this leeds rabble this week they may as well give up

I can 100% guarantee you that Wakefield will not beat Leeds this week.

[Leeds Wire]

27 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

I can 100% guarantee you that Wakefield will not beat Leeds this week.

You had me for a minute there 

[meast]

9 hours ago, BrisbaneRhino said:

Leeds do have a fair few players out, but the players we did have were awful at some of the basics.  

I was thinking about the whole '10 players out thing' and while its numerically correct it also exaggerates things a bit. Of our first choice 17 we have Myler, Newman, Gale and Eastmond (maybe) in the backs and Tetevano out.  In the backs we have 4 halfbacks out, but in reality only 2 of them would ever play. Walker should just be ignored for any of these discussions because we have to cope without him all year. Holroyd, McLelland and Alex Sutcliffe are injured, but none would be definitely in the first 17 (Holroyd maybe but maybe not).

Being down to the bones at halfback would ruin most teams. But I'm not convinced any of Eastmond, Lui or McLelland would make a huge difference either. They're just not that good. None of them have organisational skills or quality kicking game.

Bottom line is at some stage even if injuries are having an understandable effect, the players that are available - and by extension the coaching staff - need to do better. I'm also far from convinced that even when fully fit we have a 17 that can really challenge for the Comp. Too many average players in the squad again, which after the 'rebuild' of the last couple of years leaves us still a long way short.

Good post, sometimes it's not always the amount of injuries but the disruption it brings to the team, tactics, shape, structures etc, too many people just base things on how many unavailable players a team has.

You could have 12 unavailable but only 3 of those may be an integral part of what the team does, chief organiser, main defensive organiser, top tackler etc, the others could be replaced in the team/squad.

And every team now has a squad, a squad of highly trained, highly conditioned professional players, it's not like 20/30 years ago when teams only had 14/15 first team squad members and any replacements had to come from raw, inexperienced kids etc.

The injury thing is just used an excuse by most now, it's a squad game, most squad members are pretty good  rugby league players in their own right now.

[BrisbaneRhino]

Leeds  found it easier to cope with genuinely no halfbacks against Sts. If you have no halfbacks at all the gameplan becomes absolute simplicity - hard graft with and without the ball.

That will be enough sometimes to keep you competitive, but likely to lose against most teams through lack of points and really hard to maintain over more than a few games. Then as soon as you start to play something a bit more expansive because you get one halfback back, you often lose the solidity of a graft-based game for very little benefit in terms of creativity delivering points.

I'm not convinced that even at full strength we're much better than battling for top 4/5. Then add in losses we're taking now and we're playing catch up already with teams we'd need to get ahead of.