I fully agree with this. I have long argued that Sutcliffe's skill set is best suited to centre or perhaps fullback. I believe it was wrong to expect Sutcliffe to take on Sinfield's pivotal role and that his replacement should have been our number one priority even if it meant using the marquee allowance.

Lilley to my mind has always looked a natural half back and deserves to play alongside a senior partner. I think if we are to take any positives from the season so far it is with the way the youngsters Lilley, Golding, Handley and Mullally have stepped up to the plate which as you point out is in contrast to the very disappointing Watkins, Hardaker, Hall, Ablett, Achurch and Falloon.

So squad changes are needed rather like Warrington made when they hit similar transition circumstances.

What Leeds need and what Leeds get has long been a theme.

You only appear to have recognised the issue as the chickens have come home to roost and were one of the first in line to shoot down those prepared to question the failings and past cheap options being taken by the CEO.

Better late than never.

I know you were sulking last year when we were topping the table, playing attractive rugby and winning the treble which put a stop to your negative postings for a while. But you did come out of hiding to take a swipe at the coach etc in our bad patch just after the Wembley Cup win so I know you were reading this forum. Therefore you should know I have not only "recognised the issue as the chickens have come home to roost" as you should have read my posts last year where I clearly stated our recruitment needs IMO.

In August Gotcha made the point that Sutcliffe had not shown himself "capable of doing what Sinfield does"

I replied that replacing Sinfield was our biggest problem saying:

[i"Sinfield's move to RU seemed to come out of the blue and has thrown Sutcliffe in perhaps a year too soon. Sutty has undoubted talent but as you say has not yet shown the ability to control a game or make match winning goal kicks. So IMO we need a proven controller and goal kicker if only for a short term to see if Sutcliffe is able to step up. If these missing skills have to be split between more than one player, as per JP, then so be it if the budget allows"[/i

When it was pointed out that the Sutcliffe/McGuire partnership was promising I also said

[i"Promising yes but we need more than promising. McGuire has had an excellent season but without a replacement for Sinny's we do not had a proven game manager or goal kicker and that could be the difference in our success next year"[/i

and also in August last year speaking of JP's replacements:

[i"All this could be wasted without a game manager and goal kicker to win us the tight games. This need not be a Thurston as such a signing may not be available however we have to accept that to go with Sutcliffe will be a gamble."[/i

and regarding the Brierley saga:
[i
"Brierley has a lot of talent but is essentially a runner who would fill a young DM role. Burrow, Sutcliffe and Mags are also primarily runners with the latter developing his creative passing skills. But none of these can replace Sinfield's leadership, game management and kicking abilities. If we were to sign Cameron Smith this would fulfill our needs totally but as this is unlikely then IMO we need both a hooker and a controlling half back who can kick."[/i

and in September:

[i"We need a quality hooker and another halfback. Our pack is looking good but unless we replace the loss of Sinfield's key game management and kicking skills we will suffer. Sutcliffe has shown great promise but not as a game manager or high percentage kicker. Of course he will improve in these areas but he does not look a natural 'give me the ball - I will sort it' type of player. Also he has had a serious injury which could have a detrimental effect on his game.

So IMO a proven controlling half back is required perhaps on a short term contract to allow Sutcliffe, Lilley & Golding to develop."[/i

and

[i" Neither am I suggesting some mediocre off contract import. Like the replacement of Aiton we need quality. However as it stands we have invested in the JP & Kylie replacements which could be wasted if we do not invest in Sinfield's replacement. Just look at the hullabaloo on here over losing the game management abilities of Sinfield while he has been playing at hooker.

Under the new extended season it is going to be important to rotate not just forwards but backs too. With a new quality half back we could still give plenty of game time to Sutcliffe, Lilley and Golding giving the ageing McGuire & Burrow plenty of rests. Which of the aforementioned are proven game managers?

Unless the new hooker is also a game manager then yes we do need a controlling quality halfback next year"[/i

So not a case of better late than never as I clearly pointed out the dangers of taking a risk with game management by not getting our recruitment priorities right.

McGuire's fitness was the gamble. Had we signed a journeyman Aussie to play alongside McGuire and McGuire was fit we'd be hearing no end about why Sutcliffe and/or Lilley ought to be given more of a go.

Sinfield's move to RU was a year earlier than planned. GH took a punt that Sutcliffe/McGuire would work as well as it did at times early last year and develop further. It hasn't worked out that way but TBH even with the benefit of hindsight I don't think it was entirely the wrong call.

As it is we've been caught out, but the problems at halfback have been magnified by dire performances elsewhere. If our defence wasn't a complete sieve for example the halfbacks would be under far less pressure to create points. As it is we've averaged 27 points against in every game - last year we only managed to average 31 per game in a Treble winning year with champagne rugby played for parts of the year.

Glad someone was keeping up the good fight against the enemy/s within while I was on my apparent year long 'sulk'. Fancy knowing what an historic year Leeds were about to have and keeping it to myself.

Hope somebody fulfilled my other duties on here by welcoming your (Juan not Brisbane) conversion on the need for a traditional hooker and how Burrow was now best utilised after avoiding the opening exchanges - had I been actively contributing on here that stubborn mule may have prevented such an obvious move.

Some good stuff there and you'll be happy to hear some I would have happily argued against - had I not been sulking obviously.

Burrow's role going forward has to be one of the main issues for review. If he stays then we have to accept and work round his limitations in defence, whether he starts or comes off the bench.

Thinking about it, I have to say the criticism of both our young halves is very harsh. If we think about it, most games this year we have scored enough points to win the game. Sure they could have forced repeat sets etc but unfortunately game management is the one skill in a half it takes longest to learn.

Our problems this year have been defensive, I can count 5 games this year where we would have won if our defence had turned up.

That is more likely to be fixed by a new hooker than a new half.

Let's not forget that halves still need to tackle when called upon to do so. It may not be their primary role but it's not something they can escape or be protected from entirely.

I imagine if Leeds stick with Lilley and Sutcliffe in two or three years time they'll be the new cornerstones. Sinfield once used the bamboo analogy and it's one that works well here. Will Leeds be prepared to wait though - they haven't always been with others and will need a compliant supporter base prepared to continue to shell out while finding their way.

Of course they could just ditch the coach and everything will be hunky dory in the morning.

We've scored fewer points than anyone else. Our poor attack is one of the main reasons our defence is under so much pressure. Good defence can be a form of attack, we are mostly on the back foot when defending, and you are right, a real hooker would perhaps plug some of the holed up the middle.

Warrington and Wakey at home, Salford and Cas away. All games we didn't concede a bad enough total that we couldn't have bettered, but we didn't. I think their was a stat after the Salford loss that we'd have 9 tryless halfs so far this season. I suppose in recent weeks whilst the attack still has plenty of room for improvement we've stopped having those 40/50 mins periods without a try.

See I think the exact opposite to you, Wakey, Cas, Wire Hudds times 2 plus Saints and Catalans are all games where we've scored enough points to win.

We shouldn't and can't afford to have the attitude of well we'll just score more than you.

It's especially worrying as you'd think injuries are more of an excuse for poor offence rather than defence.

Over 13 matches we have averaged 25 points against us and have averaged only 17.6 points for, which had been an average of just 15 prior to out last three improved scoring matches. So you can argue we could have done better with either an improved defense or an improved attack.

Although our defense had been dire I place most of the blame on our feeble attack. As has been said all other SL sides have scored more points than Leeds yet we have let in less points than the 5 sides immediately above us. Catalans in 2nd place have let in only 4 points less per game than Leeds, Hull in 3rd less than 3 points per game than us and Wigan in 4th with 4.2 points per game less.

As Printer has previously pointed out, handling errors apart from costing us points (and wins) have put huge extra pressure on our defense in having to defend unnecessary sets. Also the lack of direction/game management and on field leadership has cost us field position and scoring opportunities.

So no surprise to find Leeds top of the team errors charts with 179 and our main offenders being Watkins (25) Sutcliffe (1icon_cool.gif, Hardaker (17) and Hall (16) Galloway deserves a mention for making the least errors of the regular players with 2 and the second highest number of tackles with 338 behind JJB who made 365 in not that many games.

We are also top of the charts for carries, marker tackles and offloads, 3rd for Busts, clean breaks, metres made and missed tackles and 5th for tackles completed. So on the whole this does not indicate a lack of effort but I would say it shows a lack of awareness and on field organisation and also poor decision making.

No surprise that we are bottom for tries scored and only one side has kicked fewer goals (Wigan!) but quite a surprise that we have given away the least number of penalties and the only club not to have had a yellow card.

So I would say there is clear evidence to suggest our main culprit has been our lack of attacking ideas compounded by handling errors and missed tackles. So the injury to McGuire and the backs have been a major factors in losing tight games and our league position.

This signals to me the need to recruit a game manager/on-field organiser as it is too big a risk to reply on McGuire's fitness.

Saw some stats on Sky Sports Website a few rounds back with regards the attack

After 10 Rounds
2015 -
260 ptb in opponents 20m zone
32 tries

2016 -
320 ptb in opponents 20m zone
19 tries

That's some interesting reading, it certainly felt like we are conceding more than that, feels like 30 points a game.

I stand by the point though there are plenty of games where with a little better defence we could have won.

Wasn't there a year under Mac, might have been 2014 where we weren't really scoring but we we conceding under 20 points a game for a big chunk of the season?

2014

421 points against at an average of 15.5

And that's with shipping 40 at London when we rested for the cup final.

Juan - your analysis looks OK on paper, but not at all if you watch the tries we've conceded all year. Against Hudds in the Cup there were huge gaps all over the field, and a complete lack of urgency to get back into the defensive line and present much of a challenge after a half break. Nothing to do with 'controlling the ruck' or anything technical - players simply not getting back into position and failing to either notice or react to changes in direction from the attack.

I've seen those same problems repeated all year, together with shirt grabs on our line constituting tackles, and zero line speed on our own line (or in fact much sense of how we're trying to defend our line at all).

The defensive side of things has been laughably bad all year and injuries simply don't excuse that.

I agree and as I said our defends has been dire and needs fixing but despite this the overwhelming evidence points to our attack being the major problem.

Phil Gould and Andrew Johns discussed the poor form of Souths and Wests a few weeks ago, and both agreed that the first step to improvement has to be solid defence and simplifying the attack to concentrate on possession and field position. Basically defence being the best form of attack when out of form.

I guess overall its a chicken and egg - fix one and the other will probably follow. Eventually.

I an all this analysis you overlook one important element - the opposition and their ability to up their game should they have needed to?

The game has two teams it isn't a case of every opposing team is playing to the max. and the only team that can improve is Leeds?

Always been a depressing theme on here that it's remarkably only Leeds' injuries, handling errors, penalties etc that cost points and even wins.

Lots of things happen in eighty minutes, not just to Leeds but to both teams.

No I didn't overlook the opposition Sal and I did not say Leeds needed to play to the max either.

It is clear from the stats and the performances that I have seen that we have lost tight games by poor decision making and bad handling. An example was Sutcliffe's woeful decision not to pass to the unmarked Watkins with an unmarked Briscoe outside him. No amount of opposition upping their game would have stopped 6 points to us. This is just one example out of many and again how many tries have gone begging with poor handling with defenses beaten. Watkins, Hardaker and others have fumbled the ball and cost us dearly.

As I pointed out we are bottom of the table with the lowest points for in the league yet we are the leading team for carries and offloads and 3rd best for tackle busts, clean breaks and metres made. So even you must acknowledge this clearly shows we have failed to take advantage of field position and opportunities and we all know why - poor decision making and bad handling plus missing 3 out of 4 of our back line and our main halfback playmaker.

I accept that we have given away too many soft tries so work has to be done all round but what you continue to overlook is that without our main playmaker in the halves and without our most effective centre and both international wingers our attack has been largely decimated and when you include a badly out of form MOS fullback and star centre you can see why.

Again you are not taking into account poor decision making by our opposition that could lead to even larger winning margins - this is a two way street. If Brough had run the ball on Friday rather than kick the drop goals the winning margin could have been even more emphatic. Are you suggesting are opponents haven't missed tries through the inability to execute - it is just Leeds? If you aren't I can't see any evidence of it in your posts.

You choose not to see the obvious facts I stated which are based on what has happened on the field. Other teams have been making the most of their chances and therefore already making better decisions with less room for improvement.

We are bottom of the table for try scoring and next to bottom for try assists yet 3rd for tackle busts and clean breaks and way out top for offloads and carries so we clearly have the most scope for improvement so your analogy does not stand scrutiny. It only needed a bit better decision making and a bit better handling to have made a huge difference to our results because having got into space with our busts, breaks and offloads or gained the field position with our carries and metres we failed to take advantage with very poor handling proved by our topping the error count.

I am sure the stats do not state that a tackle bust or break is at the same time as carries or territory. They are all seperate stats in their own right. Unless you go to the match and collate them and match them after, then you are in no position to make that statement.

Plenty of our busts and breaks have come from within our own twenty.

Decision making like that of the coach who left Lilley (who had played in all 7 games upto Easter) warming the bench for the entire eighty at Castleford, a game in which Leeds made more metres, carries, offloads and clean breaks www.rugby-league.com/superleague ... port/12236 according to Opta, a game Leeds' inability to cross ultimately cost them, a game Leeds should have won. And incidentally yet another game where Leeds were nearer to fielding their 1st choice seventeen according to the cumulative count of squad numbers: Castleford 236 - 213 Leeds

Decision making like that of the coach who left Lilley (who had played in all 7 games upto Easter) warming the bench for the entire eighty at Castleford, a game in which Leeds made more metres, carries, offloads and clean breaks www.rugby-league.com/superleague ... port/12236 according to Opta, a game Leeds' inability to cross ultimately cost them, a game Leeds should have won. And incidentally yet another game where Leeds were nearer to fielding their 1st choice seventeen according to the cumulative count of squad numbers: Castleford 236 - 213 Leeds