Nah the attack was rubbish.

What changed it was Burrow starting to run at the defence and taking the attacking line forward. That dragged players with it who would normally have just been stood there not offering support. And so we then had a half taking on the line with support runners. That seemed to spark us into action and for the final 15/20 mins or so I thought we looked very good.

I'd agree with Gotcha that Sinfield & Burrow were the best for us, I'd also say Sutcliffe did well out of position at full back.

I'd say the whole team did well in defence though, especially Briscoe who saved us a couple of times from KR short kicks.

This surely isn't right about Burrow? www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/28209268 Doesn't McGuire have over 200 SL tries...? Sure Senior and Wellens have close to 200 as well.

This surely isn't right about Burrow? www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/28209268 Doesn't McGuire have over 200 SL tries...? Sure Senior and Wellens have close to 200 as well.

No the attack wasn't rubbish. Not saying it was great btw, as I pointed out too much was forced but in terms of where we were recently....attacking in ones, then it was improved. It was always going to be a case of grinding our way back into form in that department. Also people asked for Watkins to see more ball and he did clearly tonight.

Agree about Sutcliffe, actually felt more secure with him back there fielding kicks than when BJB does.

Just turned my head when the BJB/Lovegrove incident happened, what exactly occurred as it didn't show a reply but the results didn't look too clever afterwards.

Quote ="Wigg'n"This surely isn't right about Burrow? www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/28209268 Doesn't McGuire have over 200 SL tries...? Sure Senior and Wellens have close to 200 as well.'" No it'll be wrong, the Leeds Twitter feed has it as Burrow moved into 7th place tonight going ahead of Pat Richards. God knows where BBC came up with that. EDIT - actually 8th on the list. Ryan Hall has passed both Burrow and Richards this year.

Quote ="Wigg'n"This surely isn't right about Burrow? www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/28209268 Doesn't McGuire have over 200 SL tries...? Sure Senior and Wellens have close to 200 as well.'" No it'll be wrong, the Leeds Twitter feed has it as Burrow moved into 7th place tonight going ahead of Pat Richards. God knows where BBC came up with that. EDIT - actually 8th on the list. Ryan Hall has passed both Burrow and Richards this year.

Quote ="Wigg'n"This surely isn't right about Burrow? www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/28209268 Doesn't McGuire have over 200 SL tries...? Sure Senior and Wellens have close to 200 as well.'" Yes, that's the BBC getting it wrong. Burrow went to 7th in the SL tryscorer lists tonight, replacing Pat Richards. McGuire, Senior and Wellens are 1,2,3. Prize* if you name the others without googling. (*no prize)

Quote ="Wigg'n"This surely isn't right about Burrow? www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/28209268 Doesn't McGuire have over 200 SL tries...? Sure Senior and Wellens have close to 200 as well.'" Yes, that's the BBC getting it wrong. Burrow went to 7th in the SL tryscorer lists tonight, replacing Pat Richards. McGuire, Senior and Wellens are 1,2,3. Prize* if you name the others without googling. (*no prize)

Watkins , burrow ,sinfield were top players tonight with Hall solid as ever , Danny had his best game for a while running at the line alot more , Peacock was immense again .

Just poor technique from Lovegrove. Stopped watching the ball and just went for the man. Got the timing all wrong and ended up clattering both himself and BJB. Wasn't malicious just poor tech which he paid for.

Welcome back Captain Kev and Burrow, gosh we needed you.

An absolutely dire hour. Wish I'd been an hour late. Two awful teams but Leeds remembered how to play whilst KR didn't.

Watkins was a constant threat and McGuire was much better.

2 points, erase that shizzle from the ,memory and look forward to the Cas match.

Not having a dig at McDermott but can anyone help me understand the tactic of making two substitutions within 4 mins of the start of the 2nd half?

I really do think the attack was very poor for the first hour or so, certainly the first half.
I thought we attacked just like we did last week. Slowly, in ones with no/little support, the passing was slow and inaccurate, and we didn't want to run onto the ball or run from deep. We also seemed to have a tactic of Ward being 3rd receiver very flat to the line that didn't really work at all. All it meant was he was under pressure when he received the ball stood still and so either got tackled or rushed to get a poor pass away.

In the 2nd half/last 20 we were miles better. Halves taking on the line and taking the attack forward, support runners, players running from deep, forwards running into the ball and making inroads.

If we'd played like we did in the last 20 for the whole game we'd have stuck 50/60 on them and the same last week v Wakey.
The defence kept us in it and fortunately the attack appeared at the end, like the cavalry in a Western, to save the day. If KR had scored once or twice in that first hour i don't think we'd have won.

How much did we miss Burrow, he was the ONLY dangerous player in attack and we need him to confuse and scatter defense, otherwise it seems we can't make line breaks.

What were our tactics exactly ? bore the opposition with "1up" rugby for an hour until they got tired and the flood gates opened.

What has happened to the great attack we had at the start of the season.

The attack was absolutely rubbish for 60 mins of that game, not sure why you want to defend the indefensible. You have said it twice now, and have no agreement. Any side, not even top sides, with that amount of territory and possession should be running in tries, we didn't even look like it for three quarters of that match.

When at game I was saying to my mate, you watch there will be a couple of posters on here trying to make out the KR defence was something good and that's why we could not score. You went and did it. It wasn't good, our attack was bad. This was shown by how all at sea KR were when we did click some passes together. Clueless attack does not mean good opposition defence.

And G1, we said the same thing about the substitutions, they might as well be done at half time if going to do them that early after.

I will agree with Printer to an extent. I thought early in the game we were moving the ball much crisper than in recent weeks and our line was stood a little deeper which resulted in Watkins getting ball with a bit more space. That has surely got to be one of our goals every week, he looks capable of breaking the line almost every time when given the chance.
Part way through the 1st half though we did seem to lose our way and the attack looked disjointed.
Burrow was excellent especially considering how long he has been out. Sinfield and Mcguire both had their best games for a few weeks, perhaps no coincidence that Burrow was back. Thought Mcguire showed surprisingly good pace for his try.
Sutcliffe did ok at fullback apart from the late unforced error but to often he stifles the attack. I'm sure this will improve in time.
All in all not brilliant but a step in the right direction.

Hopefully Hall will be looking to improve his handling as well over next week. Not sure what was up with him there last night. Does he have an hand injury or something?

confidence. simple as that. first half leeds were nervy and that was why it was one man rugby.
after half time you could see bit by bit the confidence returning and the ball getting shifted quicker.
we do need more grunt in the forwards against cas though or it could be a long night

I thought our attack for that first hour stifled itself we had a couple of options at different stages and took the wrong one or buggered the final ball up every time.
Defensively much better but still getting driven back in contact with 3 defenders involved reared it's head at times and the markers whilst much better got caught again a few too many times for me.
I thought Delaney was good at prop but against bigger packs may struggle Burrow was MOM for me and I thought Ward got through plenty of graft but also got hammered when used for the flat ball at the line(not the player for that move imo).
Hopefully Briscoe will take confidence from last night he looked better especially 2nd half and during that last 20 minutes the backs let loose and scored some good tries.
As for Bentham and his TJ's shocking nights work but he will be back in SL next week as if nowt had happened.

Although I admit a RL ref's job is extremely difficult, some times they looked clueless. But in Benthams defense what exactly is the Touch Judge's job description are they told not to give decisions or are they totally inept at they're job

And I knew at the game that because we hadn't scored for so long that some on here would be slitting their wrists.

The HKR defence was good actually, something people never really consider....always the attack was rubbish. Some say we never looked like scoring? Well must've missed Ablett, McGuire, Hall and Moon all being held up inches short in that first half in the left corner.....I'm not convinced by that forward pass decision either for Briscoe's try.

Most are praising the performances by our three main pivots, Sinfield, Burrow and McGuire so something must've been an improvement as our pivots weren't getting praised last week. People asked for Watkins to get more ball and he did. You yourself even say above that we had a lot of possession and territory so must've have done something ok (note the word "ok" not "good" or "great"icon_wink.gif but as I've not tried to deny that it could've been better too.

Like I said I'm not saying the attack was great but it was an improvement from last week. I'm not comparing it to how our attack was 3 months ago wins vs Saints and Wigan (or where it should be for the end of year) but to where it's been the last few weeks (especially vs Wakey). Does it still need to improve, of course, the execution still needs to be crisper and sharper BUT from where we were at Wakefield it showed more promise of starting to turn things around.

Like I said before, you aren't going to enter a game on the back of the run we've had and find the attack running like a well oiled machine, there was still some duff moments in there but I'm realistic enough to know that'll happen as turning around form isn't like switching a light on.

That we started to score wasn't proof that HKR's defence was never that good and all that it took was to pass it around.....the Burrow try wasn't off a pass more so a tired defence that continued to get more and more tired.

Normally I would be calling the Printer and Gotcha a pair of sad sacks for thinking about an internet forum whilst at a game of sun soaked rugby.

However, what else was there to do for an hour last night.

A good and fair analysis I would say, we couldn't be faulted effort wise, but I think Chester was bang on in his post match view that we lacked a bit of "smarts" and coughed up possession in good possession too often, once the dam broke Leeds did what they usually do to us and really turned the knife.
Good luck for the rest of the season.

Hull KR had 33 missed tackles. Such a good defence. Cough cough.

How many were in the final 20 minutes?

Didn't Leeds have a lot of missed tackles when their defence was winning praise in the year?

Don't take this wrong, but have you ever played the game???

McGuire did seem to pick up a bit of pace that he's been lacking a bit. And Sinfield's kicking game was a lot better.
Sutcliffe seems to keep taking on the line and running in to traffic when we have a clear overlap. Did it against Huddersfield and did it in the first half when he could of just flicked it out to Watkins.

I thought our defense in the middle seemed to improve, but Hull KR didn't test it as much as other teams have. Also the team did well not to lose their cool after some decisions went against them.

A confidence builder for the team to work on and know they didn't dip when KR brought it back to 18-6.

Oh of course they only missed them in the last 20 mins when we scored. So your saying our attack can only score when the opposition fall apart and mis tackles? Not capable of creating otherwise?

Leeds got praise in their cover defence earlier in season. Nobody hid behind the missed tackles. Are you now saying Hull KR cover defence was great?

Let's be honest here, it just comes down to a two year olds logic. Leeds score their attack is great, the best. Leeds don't score the opposition defence is great, the best.

You want to continue with you view, that's all fine for me. I just prefer realism to naivety.

Nope, I asked how many were in the final 20 mins, it's obvious that the missed tackles number will have shot up during that period no matter how much you stomp your feet about it. It was also only 5 more missed tackles than Wigan when they beat us at Magic and were roundly praised on here.



Did I say this? Did I even remotely come close to saying this? Are you making stuff up in desperation?



So Leeds missed tackles but defence was still consider good when everything was taken into context, yet you've tried to point to HKR's missed tackle number as sole proof of bad defence.



Nope, I've never used the word great at all. What I have said is what I've posted......is there anything else you've struggled to read correctly and misinterpretated?



Oh yes more misreading on your part. Where have I labelled anything about last night in the great and best category? I remember writing it was an "improvement" and HKR defended "good" which you've desperately tried to exaggerate into me saying things were amazing.

Quite clear to anybody who read my posts properly I highlighted how the passing wasn't crisp and left too late and that we still need to improve moving forward. I've also been critical of the attack on many occasions this year (in both victory and defeat) but I've come up with something more educated than just a lazy "it was rubbish" or "this player was cr*p".

If anything that logic you claim can be spun 180.

If Leeds score, it's only because the opposition defence was rubbish,
If Leeds don't score then the opposition defence was still rubbish and it goes to show how rubbish Leeds attack is.

If Leeds don't concede many then the opposition attack was rubbish,
If Leeds do concede, then the opposition weren't really that good in attack, we were just rubbish in defence.

What's happened is that you've become so incensed that a poster simply wrote that the attack was an "improvement" on the last few games that you've gone all desperate and had to resort to claiming I said things were excellent and great........maybe the most relevant question here is.....why? Why are you truly that desperate to be negative that you misread any slight hint of positive appraisal about the club and exaggerate what the poster said?



That a no then?

Printer, there is no misreading. Read your own post. You have yet again made a defensive statement, without anything but your paranoid defensive opinion to back it up.

As I said it is a two year olds logic, and it happens every game. If we are poor offensive, the opposition have great defence. If we score loads, we have great offence.

Wouldn't be so bad if you actually broke it up from time to time. But same post week after week after week.

Anyway, I will just let your naive opinion ride, and respect your view.