did anybody take note that their defensive record of only letting 317 points before today's game shouldn't be taken lightly, at the time the decision came from JK but broughy rushed the kick, I haven't a problem with going for two points as close as it was

No it will show that we won the game but that still does not make it the correct option. We got out of jail today in a game that we should have won easily.

do you think quinns should of kicked when they were 6-0 up and had a easy penalty 2 minutes later wilkes had scored for us .

today facts will show that we won by 2 points scoring 3 trys each and the same success with conversions i wonder if mcdermott wishes he had of gone for the two

No I don't think they should for me they took the right option trying to turn the screw. That it didn't pay off is not the point that's like bringing up the amount of times we take the 2 then knock on from the restart.

While Kear is coach somebody will bring this thread up after nearly every game.

I have to side with this comment, the correct option is to WIN the game and take the chance you have been given, score and game over , cock the set up and risk loosing.

With the time on the clock last night, running it is the right option.

i disagree , chances to add points on the board are crucial throughout the 80 minutes against teams like leeds . yes boring and conservative but true .
had we not gone for the 2 against quinns we would not of won , its fair to say that if we had gone for the 2 last night and even missed retaining the possession would of steered us home.

im not bitter though hindsight is wonderful

You don't try and "hold Leeds out with 2 scores and ten minutes to go", you finish the job by killing the game or in our case cock it up and blow it it.

Yes mate hindsights great but in the heat of battle you make a choice.

tbf that's what kear is employed for

Yes he is, but sometimes the guys on the pitch can "read the game" better, if its always Kears call then fine but i suspect he will always back his players in this situation. who knows mate.

Leeds were down to 12 men at that point, full back in the bin, we had a decent lead, and the clock was running down. Under those circumstances, running the ball back at them was the only decent rugby option, IMO.

i said at the time and won't change my mind because of the result, running the ball was the correct decision in the circumstances.

It was Sean Gleeson's pathetic penalty for obstruction that was the problem

Interesting to see Warrington take the 2 tonight with 15 mins left on the clock (I would have done the same in that situation with the scores tied) and Saints run 3 tries back at them to win comfortably in the end.

I suppose the answer is that whichever option you take, you have to keep exerting the pressure and respecting the ball. Obvious, I know, but the 2 pointer seemed to galvanise Saints tonight, and Wire looked like they had run out of ideas.

(Also interesting to see that the short kick off didn't fool Saints as it always seems to do us. Concentration and a winning mentality make all the difference.)

Wrong option tonight taking the two, correct option taken last night IMO.

Like throwing the towel taking two with 15 left when playing Saints.

This is very true but irrelevent in the decision making as that has to be made on the assumption that the team will make the best of whichever choice is made as unlikely as that may be!

Got to say I agree with Mutts on this, as did JK, kick the pen 2 points and MAYBE a dodgy restart, miss, ball back, and still running the clock down.

The black and white of it is the decision cost us at least a point.

Anyway whats done is done, just hope it has a positve effect, in that we know we can compete against the best.

If you take the 2 and dont kick it its the wrong option



If you take the set of 6, but dont score its the wrong option



If you take the 2 and kick it, but lose the game its the wrong option



Cant win.

you are assuming that donald would not have tried to score nearer the sticks, that smith would not have taken more time over the kick and that the kick would have been missed. there is every possibilty that had we taken the two they would have converted their try anyway making it pointless. running the ball the only option that should have been taken

And you are assuming that the game would have panned out as it did if we had taken the 2, who knows.

All I know is we come up 2 points short.

and thats the point. it's not as simple as we ended 2 points short so we were wrong to run the ball. the game could of panned out very differently with every chance that we could of conceded even more by taking the 2

But the final result should tell you everything.

There were several key moments in the game the turning down of the two did not cost us the game.

you're contradicting yourself.

you said previously

'And you are assuming that the game would have panned out as it did if we had taken the 2, who knows'

so the final result does not tell us everything? or it does?

results orientated thinking is dangerous