With regards to the playoff system, I've posted on another forum (i'm a saints fan) that it would be better if the team that came top of the league would go on to play for the world club challange as it's rewarding them for being the most consisted team throughout the season.

Playoffs continue as normal.

The game I saw last night had a highly motivated Saints side catch Leeds cold. They really built momentum in the first 20 minutes and we never got into the game at all from then on. Great performance from Saints very ordinary performance from us games like this happen and the question, as ever, is what did we learn? What can we fix if we need to? For me the key to what kind of team the 2012 Vintage Rhinos is will be more to do with how we respond and how we go against 'High Flying' Huddersfield on Friday.

This really was a very bad hair day. Perhaps the most appropriate word to describe the Leeds performance is “shocking”

Shocking is the shade of pink (not red) that the players had applied to their heads and one could be excused for thinking that the hair salon is not the best place to prepare for a visit to St Helens.

From the very first minutes it was clear that Saints were running hot and we had left our heads at Nicky Clarkes!

Smith was awful. Slow in deed and slow in thought. Surely a pre-requiste for a full back is to get to an attacking kick with all speed. I would have also thought that having cleared your own line and faced with a line of defenders rushing at you, the best plan would be to go low into a contact with the objective of getting to ground and not allowing yourself to be carried back over your line in an embarrassing upright repose.

McShane played with the intent of proving why he is 3rd choice hooker. The pack were terrible as a unit underlined by the scary thought that Kirke looked our best forward. Our half backs were invisible and our right side defence leaked like a sieve.

But the game was lost around the ruck with Roby dominant and congratulations to Saints who on that form would have beaten any side in SL. We allowed them quick PTB’s and they did not return the compliment. Once we let them get on a roll there was no stopping them and even our one try came from a forward pass. In all aspects of the game we just did not compete.

Coincidentally the two non pink tops Clarkson and Moore tried their best and perhaps the time has come to give the latter more game time in place of a sadly out of form JP. However we did go into the game missing 2 of our best inform attackers and because of this we ended up with changes in 3 out of 4 of the pivotal positions. Like the pink hair this was not the reason for our poor performance but neither helped either.

With most sides dropping points only pride was lost at Saints

Lets hope that like Samson they regain their strength when the real hair grows out. (Or they shave it all off which would be more sensible)

I disagree Seth. We did have the opportunities to change the pattern of the game. After the whirlwind start we got our share of possession and territory on Siants line. However, on at least three occasions, perhaps four, we ran it on the last tackle rather than putting in our kicks. Had we been smarter with those opportunities and perhaps posted a try at 18-6 with 20 mins gone who knows how brittle Saints new found confidence would be?

Without over reacting to last night Lee Smith has looked pedestrian of thought and foot for 18 months now. Should Webb be unavailable again I'd like to see BJB at 1 and Chisolm given a chance on the wing.

Hardaker will make a very good centre but I want to seem him use Hall sooner rather than later. His step off the left cut back right is becoming predictable. I'm sure he'll make it though.

I though Delaney was tremendous and Griffin and Kirke were good. As for the rest, meh, move on, get back on the training pitch and start again Friday.

It wasn't just the lack of kick (seriously missed McGuire in that regard), but of those times you mentioned we also for some silly reason, rather than try and exploit the possible overlap we actually gave a completely telegraphed inside pass instead in heavy traffic areas.

Delaney, Griffin, Moore and Kirke can look themselves in the mirror today, knowing that they had a decent shot. Everyone else should be feeling a bit sheepish.

Wouldn't have a problem with this

Isn't that part of the suggested format from the RFL for a revised World Club Challenge?

They are looking at top 3 in each league, but I think it was stated that the team finishing top of league would be one of these if the two grand finalists do not include the team finishing top.

It wouldn't work in it's present format what you are suggesting, as the current "one off" game is for champions only. And the only champions are the Grand Final winners.

The last tackle options were awful at times. Especially down our left edge. Burrow/Sinfield were giving crash balls to Hardaker but he obviously isn't big/strong enough to push players out of the way. That's not a criticism of him, it's just not one of his strengths. Those type of passes may have worked if Senior was charging onto them, he isn't anymore.

Agree RE Delaney, Kirke and Moore. Moore really looks like he wants to take his chance with both hands.

The chances of a Saints backlash were always pretty high tbh, we just couldn't match them. Looking forward to Friday, both ourselves and Huddersfield were well beaten will have points to prove.

I agree with you Gareth, what leeds had wasnt momentum they wasted 3 opportunities to gain momentum/repeat sets with poor decision making early on, the battle was then lost and the game quickly got away.

Lee Smith didn't take his chance. Looked slower than Wellens.

In the end it was a one off match. Saints had alot to play for and Leeds well

Injuries and suspensions told. It drag your players out of their better positions to fill a role elsewhere. I always see Sinfeild as Leeds controller. He lets Maguire and Borrows run riot in front of him, whilst stearing the team around the pitch and putting in a killer kicking game. Last night he was more in the thick of it alongside another player who has not played in the halves for sometime.

You missed a bit of the biff with Bailey out and another prop getting a back injury early on.

Smith is exciting in attack but never has been a defender. Also you had no way of knowing what you where up against. When you look at Saints vids this year. None of what we did last night were on those vids, you would have to look at plays from 4 or 5 years ago.
No one bar Widnes has seen Lance play in the halves.

Some days it does not happen, we on the other hand had Sia out. So when you have bodies back and know our game plan, it may not be such one way traffic. ( although I could live with that).

Will be interesting to see if Smith is picked next time either Webb or one of the wingers is missing. With Hood and Ward getting debuts all ready this year, Chisolm must be very close to being the next considered (with BJB moving to FB if its Webb injured). With Smith, McShane and Moore given the opportunity to prove they should be getting more game time, only Moore gave his chances a boost.

Spot on in my opinion surely Chisholm deserves his chance? Time for Smith to hang his boots up,Leave Burrow at 9 and have faith in Ward to do his own job.

Given the tendency of pretty much every team in the competition is to attack more down their left than the right (simply because it's easier for right handed players to pass in that direction), is there an argument for swapping the centres over?

Hardaker is steady, but the amount of play that came down his side (in the first half in particular) compared to the number of times Leeds went right must have left Watkins feeling like he'd upset someone.

You need to get the ball in the hands of your biggest attacking threats as often as possible. That's why Burrow is being used as a dummy half. Starving Watkins of possession really isn't going to get the best out of him.

I don't think they went right that often because of the amount of defensive work they had to do down that side particulary in the first half. I'm not sure of the stats but I would bet 3/4s of Saints passes and PTBs went to their left (our right side). A good tactic to be fair.

I think Watkins has expressed a preference for the right. Likes a right arm carry, left arm fend.

On the match, McGuire and Webb would have made very little difference to the defense. That came down to more than players missing, and was clearly an attitude issue for this match, it never started right, and it panicked there on.

With regards the attack side, we could have learnt a lot from Saints in this game, and for that matter watch the Wigan v Warrington match also. They were very very deep as an attacking line, compare and contrast to Leeds last night, who were far too flat and because of that were flat footed, and made the forwards job even harder.

It happens in games when one centre/wing pair will see little of the ball, its not been a reaccuring theme for Watkins this year so no need to worry. Probably just McDermott's tactics of thinking Saints are weaker down that side for some reason, remember the work Shenton got through in defence in the Grand Final before getting injured.

Unless you're trying to spin the ball there's no difference passing left or right (or there shouldn't be) - I never had any preference when I played although I can't spin it off my left hand I can chuck it the same distance (my 9 year old can spin it off both hands though). Webb's long pass is spun and he heavily favours doing that off his right hand. I can't see any other reason why we shouldn't be able to attack wherever we think the defence is weakest - left or right. There would be some justification for loading one side with a particular combination (as in the days of Ali, Keef and McGuire in their best days), but usually that's done because you don't have options on the other side of the field as good. We should be able to move the ball right at will. There's also no reason why Watkins or Hardaker couldn't do what Innes and Iro used to do a lot which was double up on the same side.
It seems strange that Watkins saw so little ball when he causes havok with nearly every touch.

I'm worried that there are props looking tired when we have 5 out of 17, it certainly limits our chances of changing the game if all we have is props.
Smith didn't do brilliantly but neither did the whole team, I hope he gets a chance of a run in the team when the rest of the team turn up so we can know if he still has anything to offer.
We were going to struggle in attack without Webb and Mcguire as our main attacking move goes through both their hands, shame no one else could step up to the mark

I agree re-Smithy Hopie althoughhe wasn't very good ther were many more who have had plenty of SL games under their belts that were way off what we'd expect.

DHM - I don't think Hardaker's problem is passing so much as the lines he runs and awareness of where Hall is at all times. When people say he 'never got a chance to pass to Hall' in a game its more that he never got himself into a position where setting up Hall in space was an option. Against Salford their defence was so poor that it would have been an ideal opportunity for Hardaker to start trying to set up Hall. In the end he got a hat-trick and Hall got nothing, but it won't have helped Hardaker's development much.

An exact opposite centre would be Matt Gidley. Not a running threat at all, but caused massive problems because his first thought was always to get a pass to his winger whilst taking defenders out. IMO Hardaker should have a look at some video of the likes of Gidley and Jamie Lyon and look at the angles they run and how they nearly always commit defenders to themselves whilst leaving open the possibility of passing.

Senior would be the worst left centre to copy, because he committed defenders by taking the tackle before looking to offload. He could do that because he was immensely strong. Hardaker may develop that power, but if he tried to do what Senior did he'd get smashed.

I've read some of this thread but not all of it. My thoughts are as follows.

Peacock was awful. I don't for any moment think that means he's finished.
Kirke was probably our best forward, and when he was on was our best part of the game. That doesn't mean that he's a world beater.
Hardaker rarely passes to Hall, but he's a young lad learning the position, and should be given time. I don't see why some people see him as a half though
McGuire/Webb wouldn't have made one jott of difference.
Smith disappointed me more. After not being in the team for a while and a chance to impress, I'd expect that he'd show a little bit of enthusiasm with the ball. Just didn't looked bothered. Can't excuse that.
It all boils down to the fact that Saints clearly wanted this game more than we did. Their players this week will have realised that their poor play this season has cost their boss his job, and decided to do something about it. I think if we'd have played well we'd have still struggled to win.

Given this, and our acknowledgement that not all games matter in the long run, could this have been targetted as a low intensity week?

Those two statements are inconsistent.

Webb would (likely) not have been pushed back in goal twice, allowing Saints repeat sets. Leeds would have had ball in hand and a platform to build.

With McGuire and Webb on, would Sinfield have been controlling everything on a day where he could do little right? With that support would he even have been having one of those days? With McGuire and Webb on the pitch would our last tackle options from some very good positions have been "powerplay" inside passes to Kirke or Clarkson or grubbers going dead from Burrow and Smith? Repeat sets or tries there, even with the pack getting beaten and even at 18-0, could have changed the game.