Fri 5th Apr: SL: Leeds Rhinos v Warrington Wolves KO 20:00 (Sky)

[Tommygilf]

6 hours ago, redjonn said:

watched his press conference and he seemed honest enough to me that Leeds didn't perform, Warrington much better, even when Leeds managed to get closer on the points just after half time, etc etc, even if the double movement try was given and score even closer that Warrington always looked better team.    So he didn't blame ref.

Of course he will be under pressure, the performances have not been good enough and though they play really well at times its normally a poor half followed by a really good half... and to be honest even if all games had been won he would be under pressure by many Leeds fans,,,

My comment was tongue in cheek, I doubt he could be unaware what his previous post defeat press conferences have sounded like and I'm glad the ref bashing has gone.

He is certainly under pressure. 3 home defeats on the bounce is that now (League and Cup?). The next 3 games look "easier" on paper at least.

[Tommygilf]

5 hours ago, Damien said:

Not many.

McDermott was there for 7 years and had great success before things went wrong.

Agar hasn't ever proven himself as a good head coach and has always had his knockers.

Smith came from the Queensland Cup and was hardly a success with Bradford in the Championship. 

So what happened with McDermott has been seen across sports in that a coach perhaps stays on too long and a successful team becomes stale and declines. For his first few years he was certainly well thought of.

However the appointments of Agar and Smith were just asking for trouble in my opinion and were not the men Leeds needed. They very much seemed like a cheap option. Neither have shown any sort of pedigree to be head coach of a club like Leeds.

McDermott was hardly a stellar appointment at the time, but ultimately he had done the job at London before in Super League, and then won the Grand Final in his first year and reached the cup final too. He did the same again the following year. Regular season results were mixed to an extent. Whilst winning from 5th was fun at the end, as was reaching Wembley twice, it did still mean a regular season with results only good enough for 5th place. We had a team that was superb in big games, winning 6 out of 8 finals, but that showed McDermott was perhaps more of a man motivator than a tactician. He also had the men in his squad to do that, unfortunately they were replaced by lesser men and it fell apart.

Agar came in on a temporary basis initially and just seemed to stay on. Smith could have worked, but he is trying things at Leeds that he should be trying (and in many cases seeing fail) at less demanding club environments. 

[Harry Stottle]

2 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

McDermott was hardly a stellar appointment at the time, but ultimately he had done the job at London before in Super League, and then won the Grand Final in his first year and reached the cup final too. He did the same again the following year. Regular season results were mixed to an extent. Whilst winning from 5th was fun at the end, as was reaching Wembley twice, it did still mean a regular season with results only good enough for 5th place. We had a team that was superb in big games, winning 6 out of 8 finals, but that showed McDermott was perhaps more of a man motivator than a tactician. He also had the men in his squad to do that, unfortunately they were replaced by lesser men and it fell apart.

Agar came in on a temporary basis initially and just seemed to stay on. Smith could have worked, but he is trying things at Leeds that he should be trying (and in many cases seeing fail) at less demanding club environments. 

Corrections welcome, but I seem to recall that the London fans who wrote on these pages were happy to see the back of McDermott I seem to remember that the previous season before he arrived London finished 4th and in each of his seasons there couldn't acheive or better than what they were and playing a boring game, so Leeds I am correct employed a failing coach. But it worked out. OR was it the players at his disposal who made him look better than he was.

[DoubleD]

3 hours ago, redjonn said:

I think results are as expected as well as being inconsistent at the moment, as again expected.

Roberts has been good cover for injured Futsitu'a and I would expect him to not be first choice when no injuries, whilst McDonnell in my view has been a good signing. he played well last year - a typical solid SL player.. 

The spine isn't functioning as well as one would have expected but then again the problem is more the forwards. Leeds struggle to make yards and kicking from deep doesn't help Brodie and Ackers to shine. 

Frawley field kicking has been poor plus not strong enough boot, as a simple example to make most of penalties. He barely makes yards from those kicks.

Mohorovici when he gets a decent run at centre rather than having to cover wing I think will be decent enough. 

Imho as said above if we have forwards that struggle non of the backs will shine but a decent strong field kicker would help get them out of a pickle.  At least recognise when an early kick is needed plus maybe a more aggressive defence that may limit opposition yardage.

Oh a better full back that joins the attacking line more frequently may also help Croft... they miss Myler despite Miller flatting to deceive.

I agree it’s obvious we miss Myler who strung our attack together and had been our best player in recent seasons. 

McDonnell is symptomatic of our forward issues. He’s a solid enough player but he doesn’t get through the line or make metres, neither does Bentley. Gannon is our only 2nd row who does and there’s real concern about him with his concussions. Fitzgibbon monstered us yesterday and merely highlighted how we lack quality 2nd rowers.

We have too many similar forwards - Donaldson, O’Connor and Goudemand are all natural loose forwards yet none of them would get in over Smith. So we end up with square pegs in round holes. And all of those 3 are solid players but not of the quality to be challenging 

[Gooleboy]

3 hours ago, DoubleD said:

I agree it’s obvious we miss Myler who strung our attack together and had been our best player in recent seasons. 

McDonnell is symptomatic of our forward issues. He’s a solid enough player but he doesn’t get through the line or make metres, neither does Bentley. Gannon is our only 2nd row who does and there’s real concern about him with his concussions. Fitzgibbon monstered us yesterday and merely highlighted how we lack quality 2nd rowers.

We have too many similar forwards - Donaldson, O’Connor and Goudemand are all natural loose forwards yet none of them would get in over Smith. So we end up with square pegs in round holes. And all of those 3 are solid players but not of the quality to be challenging 

Natural loose forwards were Hanley, Pinner, Norton, Laughton, Reilly, etc. Not those you mention.

[bobbruce]

Just now, Gooleboy said:

Natural loose forwards were Hanley, Pinner, Norton, Laughton, Reilly, etc. Not those you mention.

Hanley wasn’t a natural loose forward he worked his way into that position. 

[Gooleboy]

Just now, bobbruce said:

Hanley wasn’t a natural loose forward he worked his way into that position. 

Fair point, but he was a proper loose forward when he got there.

[bobbruce]

Just now, Gooleboy said:

Fair point, but he was a proper loose forward when he got there.

I bet Leeds would kill for him there now.

 

 

…… and he’s 60 odd.  

[DoubleD]

39 minutes ago, Gooleboy said:

Natural loose forwards were Hanley, Pinner, Norton, Laughton, Reilly, etc. Not those you mention.

What are they then?

[Zilla Budgie]

Leeds next 3 games, definitely win 2 of them maybe 3. Then it gets tough with Catalans & Saints next up.

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

15 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Corrections welcome, but I seem to recall that the London fans who wrote on these pages were happy to see the back of McDermott I seem to remember that the previous season before he arrived London finished 4th and in each of his seasons there couldn't acheive or better than what they were and playing a boring game, so Leeds I am correct employed a failing coach. But it worked out. OR was it the players at his disposal who made him look better than he was.

I was certainly glad to see the back of McDermott-ball......can't argue with his record at the Whinos though 

[Gooleboy]

11 hours ago, DoubleD said:

What are they then?

Just forwards. The skillful loose forward position is virtually none existent.

[DoubleD]

4 minutes ago, Gooleboy said:

Just forwards. The skillful loose forward position is virtually none existent.

I never claimed they were skilful loose forwards, but that is their natural position. Not sure how that is questionable 

[Gooleboy]

Just now, DoubleD said:

I never claimed they were skilful loose forwards, but that is their natural position. Not sure how that is questionable 

Is there such a thing as a loose forward anymore? 

[DoubleD]

2 minutes ago, Gooleboy said:

Is there such a thing as a loose forward anymore? 

Yes

[Gooleboy]

Just now, DoubleD said:

Yes

Can we agree to disagree then and leave it at that.

[Barley Mow]

18 minutes ago, Gooleboy said:

Is there such a thing as a loose forward anymore? 

The last match I went to was Doncaster v York last month. York started with essentially a prop at 13, which (as you say) isn't unusual these days.

They were terrible pretty much all match except from 20 mins at the end of the first half when Ata Hingano came on at loose forward. They went from having three props to having effectively three half backs - the difference was amazing.

Although there are fewer specialist traditional loose forwards these days, and teams are much more likely to play another 'middle' there - 13 is still a position where a bit of tactical thinking and varying who plays from essentially a half back, right through a spectrum to a prop can have a big impact on style of play and match outcome.

[Just Browny]

1 hour ago, Gooleboy said:

Is there such a thing as a loose forward anymore? 

Westerman? Dare I say even Ben Currie