I notice there is very little credit given to Quins performance

Mac knows how to coach a team to lose at The Stoop-He mastered it for 3 years

Very good

Can we play you every week ?

Wigan still fielded a respectable looking Lima, Hock, Prescott and O'Carroll as their prop rotation.

Leeds presumably tried going with Leuluai, Kirke, Pitts and Lauitiiti as theirs V Ward, Temata, Wilkes and Ambler. Only ever likely to be one winner in that mini battle given Leuluai is the only bona-fide prop amongst the Leeds quartet and he's lucky if he lasts thirty minutes most weeks over his two stints.

There was another masterstroke by our slow learning coach. On 35 mins Burrow is stood on the touchline with his replacement number waiting to come on; Sinfield is binned I thought for a quick 22m tap interference, Burrow is then told not to go on so goes and sits down. Burrow starts the second half, Sinfield returns five mins after the break. During Sinfields absence Quins scored 12 points. We lose by 10 in the end.
Burrow should have been on at 12 nil and certainly at 14 nil. We were pedestrian all the first half and we needed some pace injecting into our game and a score before half time.
The final score flattered us, only Delaney and Pitts when he was on can escape critisism.
On the final whistle the team came over to applaud supporters in the away stand which was about threequarters full I feel because it is the done thing to save further critisism not because they appreciated the following. Their appreciation should have been shown by producing a determined effort; our forwards were awol throughout the match it was the backs keeping the ball alive in the last 10 mins when Quins were tiring that got us the final 18 points. Quins were nothing special, they did the basics right and were organised. We hashed up a glorious chance to finish fourth I only hope we don't perform the same next Saturday.

Except Webb who sculked off into the changing rooms, hoping, I presume, that no one noticed. He does this most weeks

Good summing up of the day......I can't argue with any of that. It must be an increasingly frustrating situation for Rob Burrow, as it is for us supporters, to be left on the bench until the sitation is beyond help as he was against Quins. Mac has to start Burrow at Wembley, and accept he got things badly wrong against Quins regarding team selection and tactics.

I'm going to go against the grain here. BM did the right thing IMO - picked a reasonably strong line-up to try to keep momentum going for the cup final. I would argue he should have picked his first choice 17 (i.e. including the absent props), but.....

That result has nothing to do with BM and evrything to do with the attitude of the players. Had BM known they'd play like that he would quite likely have picked an Academy side. I'm sure the team would have reassured him that they intended to build on recent improvements with an eye to taking some form into Wembley. As it is -IMO - they barely turned up, played soft and got beaten badly.

Is there a reason why Mac doesnt pick Burrow at 7, McGuire at 6 and Sinfield at 13 with Webb at 1 and Buderus at 9 a formula that has stood Leeds in good stead for years.

He is a bizarre character. Puzzled me for 3+ years in London

He has his favourites, your one of em, your in clover, your not............ your stuffed.

Sinfield has decided he wants to play 6 - McDermott has to keep him on side or else what happened to Smith and McClennan will happen to him. Once he does that either Burrow or McGuire has to drop to the bench and we have no LF.

Hang on - so you're telling me Sinfield got two of the most successful coaches in the club's history sacked because neither would play him at six every week?

Seriously?

Even by your standards David that's some conspiracy theory you've got there.

Can't wait to see Ian Kirke's stats this week given his role in that 17 selected.

It will also be interesting to see how Richard Moore got on given he's been brought in next season to take up some of the prop slack.

oh you tease

I've seen them now. Jaws will be dropping all over Leeds when the weekly thread goes up.

did 'Gentle Giant' make double figures???

I have no real idea what his stats were, but he was completely ineffective on the day. It goes without saying that he didn't break a tackle or make an offload. Seeing as our kicking game was appalling and we didn't force any drop-outs, he didn't get his usual easy yards from that.

I'd guesstimate 10 drives for 48 yards.

As an aside: given Brisbane Rhino absolved our coach for the Quins performance (and maybe it would make more sense if the performance was untypical) as the players had "one eye on Wembley", I'd like to know why the players who should, by form, be clinging by their fingernails to a place in the Wembley team, or pushing for inclusion in it (Clarkson, Pitts, Lauititi, Kirke) were so terrible too. Unless, in a masterstroke of man-management, they already know the favourites and the team and have no motivation to perform.

The game before Wembley final often is surrounded by controversy. I remember it used to be a regular occurrence for clubs to field complete reserve sides to avoid injury. It is always in the players mind to avoid injury prior to the final and opposition sides know this and raise their game and often their physicality accordingly. So I would not dwell on our last performance (or lack of)

With regard to team selection and tactics for the final IMO we have to start with our very best defensive line up. Our game plan should be to close down the Wigan attack and frustrate them to such an extent that they start to lose some confidence and break from their game plan and start to make mistakes.
It would be nice to think we can field our best attackers and score some great tries with an expansive game. But we have too many players well past their best and DM not fully back to fitness and form.

Therefore I would start with Sinfield at 6. If Buderus needs a rest I would keep it brief either side of half, time and use Sinny as cover at 9 thus allowing Burrow and McGuire some space to vary our attack. If we are still in the game as the 2nd half progresses we will then need Burrow at 7, McGuire at 6 and Sinfield at 13

So we need the boys to step up on Saturday and keep our discipline. We will need a good kicking game to keep play in their half and of course a lot of luck. But it’s the cup and anything can happen.

I haven't absolved Brain from the rest of the season. I've simply said that had he known the team would play soft - which they obviously did given Quins' record over the last few months - then he would have been as well picking an Academy side. As it is, we've picked up injuries to our centres, and lost another league game. Are you seriously suggesting that we wouldn't have beaten Quins if that same 17 had put in real effort throughout the game, bad as we are? All I'm saying is for that one game only, have a look at the players not the coach.

BM may not be much of a motivator or a great coach, but he's certainly got enough awareness to know our best chance for next week was for us to try to build on the recent wins and build some confidence and combinations. Otherwise there was zero point in picking any of our first team. IMO when we lose games like that its entirely down to players slacking off.

As for Sinfield, where does this nonsense come from that if he doesn't play stand off he spits the dummy?

I think David's partly right (not about the sacking).
Sinfield is on record as thinking he's a six and so, it seems, does McDermott.
So, obviously, you then play your usual stand-off at 7.
And you put your normal 7 on the bench, of course, or maybe bring him on at 9 to give the old feller at 9 a rest.
And because your 7 is now your spare hooker, McShane gets no game time.
Oh.. and Sinfield (being a six) gets a spell in the centres during defence and then we miss him defensively in the middle.
All very logical.

Nice one Brian.

Its the chopping and changing I don't like. Halfbacks should play the full 80 minutes at halfback unless they get injured. Whether that's Sinfield/McGuire, Sinfield/Burrow or Burrow/McGuire it doesn't matter. There's no other team I can think of that rotates halfbacks regularly like Leeds.

The problem is we used to get away with "carrying" a half back at loose forward, but over recent seasons our lack of go forward from the forwards and backs has really stood out. I don't think, particuarly given the strong packs of Weegan, Hudds, Wire & St's, that we can afford to have a single pack member who doesn't take the ball up aggressively. Sinfield has to play so 6 is the obvious postion.

When has sinfield said he's a six? I'm not trolling just genuinely can't remember him ever saying it (oh and everyone knows sinny is a 10..."he's well fit in'he"

)

I'd agree with your point but it's not a problem that we've only had this year and this is why (for all his faults) I can't see why people think Sinny at 6 is a BMcD brain fart. The modern game has moved more and more towards workhorse LF's and away from playmakers - to get away with not having a big 13 you need a dominant pack.

The messiah that is Tony Smith also had the same issue eg Furner played at 13 in the 2004 Grand Final - I guess the enabler for Sinny playing more at 13 would be that we brought in Ellis and then JP meaning we had a pretty special pack - our pack in 2007-2008 must have been one of the best Leeds has ever fielded (...and didn't Kirke play in both those GF's

)

I do agree with the issue of Sinfield at loose forward weakening our pack a bit, although Clarkson is hardly a human wrecking ball either. Unless Ali is fit we severely lack power forwards. Next season we look even lighter in that area - we won't have a single forward that really tests the opponents' line with the ball.

Having said that, its not as if this issue has been unknown for a long time. Eastwood was supposed to help fix that, and the gradual decline of Lauti'iti, Peacock and Leuluai hasn't helped - our front row has gone from being very solid to struggling for parity. That in turn has highlighted the averageness of our back row IMO.