Homer Simpson wrote:I thought McDermott was on a rolling 1 year contract ? mutual agreement is the only way Leeds can get rid of McDermott for free. If Leeds were to sack him it's three years pay out. http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/21280579 That's when it was signed.

Homer Simpson wrote:I thought McDermott was on a rolling 1 year contract ? mutual agreement is the only way Leeds can get rid of McDermott for free. If Leeds were to sack him it's three years pay out. http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/21280579 That's when it was signed.

I would be very surprised if when Leeds and Brian Mcdermott part company the line trotted out isn't along the lines of - 'after an unprecedented period of success for the club, it has been decided after a difficult season that now is the time for both parties to move in different directions.Blah blah blah...yours GH

Frosties. wrote:mutual agreement is the only way Leeds can get rid of McDermott for free. If Leeds were to sack him it's three years pay out. http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/21280579 That's when it was signed. Nothing official there. Only George Riley's opinion. Nothing about 3 years pay either. Guess work.

Frosties. wrote:mutual agreement is the only way Leeds can get rid of McDermott for free. If Leeds were to sack him it's three years pay out. http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/21280579 That's when it was signed. Nothing official there. Only George Riley's opinion. Nothing about 3 years pay either. Guess work.

Before Wembley we were looking comfortable but 3 of our losses came after that when we lost 3 on the trot and looked knackered.

The 2004 team went out of the cup in the 5th round.

Flip their cup runs around. The 2015 team go out in the early rounds and the 2004 team go all the way to the final then I'd hazard a guess that the W/L records would alter a bit.

Well actually I would say his organising in defence is missed. However whilst the defence hasn't been great look at some of the totals we've conceded....

.....if you said at the start of the year we'd concede 14 points away to Salford you'd say fair enough and expect us to have scored more than them to win. Likewise vs Cas, they score 16....yeah not such a total we couldn't out score, the Wire game vs first week, even Wakey at home if you said they'll score 20 you'd imagine we'd have scored more. Granted been a couple of bad ones like the Widnes game and HKR.

But it's the attack barely being able to score that's the problem and the attack we had last year was set up to suit the players we still have here. It wasn't a structured, disciplined, need a wise head like Sinfield to guide us through the plan setup. It was keep the ball alive, throw an offload and don't be held down by a plan......ideal really for a team who wouldn't have a wise old head to guide them and hold their hands through a more structured detailed attacking game plan. So Sinfield's absence doesn't explain why these players can't be scoring more points as the style of attack last year wasn't one that was designed with Sinfield in mind or played to his strengths of controlling games. I dare say at the start of last season Sinfield was actually the weak link in games as the style we were going for really didn't suit him as a player before he got injured and missed a few and had no trouble scoring in wins vs Wigan and away to Cas and Catalans in one of our best little sequences of results from last year so proof the players can do it without Sinfield holding their hands.

They actually showed in the first half vs NQC that they could do it and that's the most the attack has resembled last year's in terms of keeping it alive and making the oppositions defence having to make an extra effort to get to the offloaded player, however because it was against an NRL defence you don't get as much reward. If we reproduced similar in the league games we would've scored enough to win a number of those games we lost but the players simply haven't thrown themselves into the league games like they did the WCC match.

Too simplistic.



Again too simplistic to just say other teams have had injuries. It all depends on which players are injured at the same time and in addition to our injuries we had already lost three stalwarts from our Triple winning side. Two of these were our on the field leaders and one our game manager, organisor and leading kicker. Did the other clubs you mention also have this serious handicap to overcome too?

The club made signings to try and replace JP but did not for key man Sinfield and placed their faith in the unproven Sutcliffe to take on this role. Something which I seem to recall you agreed with at the time.

So when new captain McGuire got injured in the first match we were left with no option but to trust in Sutcliffe, Burrow, Lilley to responsible for our key pivot positions (as Falloon was one of the injured) Sadly these three have proven to be inadequate and their job was made even more difficult by the poor form of senior players like Hardaker, Watkins and Hall etc. Also since Falloon eventually was fit enough to play he has been a big disappointment so far.




We have lost one game by 2 points and another four games by 4 points. In each of these we have missed kickable goals which in all but the last game could have changed the result.

Our form in all aspects of the game has been terrible but although our defense has been woeful at times it is our attack that IMO has been the main reason for our position in the table and this comes back to the lack of adequate halfbacks and decision makers.



But you do not know if Mac had requested a replacement for Sinfield do you? To keep repeating that you apparently believe Sinny and JP did "plenty of coaching" does not make it true either. As I said before you too were happy for us not to sign a half back and you felt Sutcliffe deserved the position.



I am sure there are as many examples of new managers being worse than the previous ones eg in football things have not gone too well for Man U Fergie left have they?

Correct.




The lack of a second team/development is another of the reasons for the decline in our sport. Players need to play every week when fit and so those that have not make the 17 plus players returning from injury should play in the 2nds along with a mix of younsters who would then have time to adjust to the senior game without the same pressures. To achieve this will need extra funding which is another reason to increase the Cap.

Too simplistic to show a clear factual example of where a change of Coach worked at a club with plenty of injuries at the time of change??
In terms of me backing Suttcliffe i still do 100% but he was never going to be the leader that Sinfield was neither was Mcguire something i clearly also said at the time.
Not replacing "Sinfield/JP" is clearly meant in terms of on field Leadership and as we are witnessing off field influence not nescersarily positionally.
Also re-Sinfield/JP the Coach himself has reiterated on numerous occasions over previous seasons the amount of input they had on/off the pitch so not just what i believe a fact backed up by the Coaches comments.
Did he ask for replacements? He was pretty vocal in backing who we'd signed & how we had enough in the group already id say that indicates not.
Ive already said GH takes a portion of the blame but also the teams we've had available could & should have performed better you accuse me of being simplistic with certain opinions but for you its straight forward to blame HB's??
Hmmm anyone watching us knows clearly its not just down to HB's the whole shape with & without the ball has been pish more often than not even with Mcguire & Burrow running the show.
I'll also add even with plenty of players available we hardly ever look like winning & we certainly look short of any sort of game-plan.
Cas are riddled with injuries which include a HB & their go to FB yet they are often more competitive than not & have a clear plan & shape no matter how basic we have neither.

Unbelievable cobblers about Sutcliffe on here. His collapse in form is entirely understandable - have a look at how bad Hastings and Nikorima were going for the Roosters until recently.

Young halfbacks thrown in at the deep end will almost inevitable be the first to lose confidence when the team is playing badly because they have so much more responsibility than anyone else. Its no coincidence that Hastings is now looking much better having moved an experienced forward to play alongside him. A couple of weeks ago he looked like he'd never played the game - passes all over the place, wrong options almost every time and his kicking game (previously a huge strength) was dreadful.

From what I saw last year Sutcliffe has the makings of a very good SL stand off. What he needs though is a partnership with a more experienced player that lasts more than a few games and to play in a team where so-called senior players aren't taking the mickey.

In terms of junior development I'd say its been poor for a while now. A team like Leeds with its resources ought to be aiming to have two or more juniors at about the stage Handley and Golding were last year every year - and accept some will move on as there is no first team spot for them. We haven't had a decent forward come through the Academy since Ward 5 years ago.

Sutcliffe was never IN form. Whenever he played, Sinfield was on the bench to rescue the situation. Sutty at one good game vs Wakefield when he played full back.