: Mon May 04, 2009 6:50 pm  

rhinoms wrote:

I blame you and G1

Which brings me onto why he hasnt applied the same criteria to St Helens on Saturday that he has been with Leeds.

After all, two dreadful back to back perfromances from Saints surely means a crisis and wholesale changes from the coach right through to the academy set up?

: Mon May 04, 2009 6:52 pm  

Kifaru wrote:

Which brings me onto why he hasnt applied the same criteria to St Helens on Saturday that he has been with Leeds.

After all, two dreadful back to back perfromances from Saints surely means a crisis and wholesale changes from the coach right through to the academy set up?

I'm sure he'll have some alternative opinion's of the mighty "S"!!

: Mon May 04, 2009 8:20 pm  

Kifaru wrote:

Anyone else think DISA is on a permanent period nowadays?

I think he's spot on about the Buderus/Diskin issue and the McGuire point.

We looked loads more structured with two halves and a running LF. Maybe with McGuire, Burrow and Sinny we have too many chiefs and not enough Indians?

Until McGuire stops impersonating a headless chicken then it's Burrow and Sinfield for the halves.

: Mon May 04, 2009 8:45 pm  

G1 wrote:

I think he's spot on about the Buderus/Diskin issue and the McGuire point.

We looked loads more structured with two halves and a running LF. Maybe with McGuire, Burrow and Sinny we have too many chiefs and not enough Indians?

Until McGuire stops impersonating a headless chicken then it's Burrow and Sinfield for the halves.

Yes He is right on that. Doesnt stop him being a stroppy cow though.

: Mon May 04, 2009 8:59 pm  

McGuire was poor when he came on. Not much worse than every other player on our side though. The lack of depth across the park was astonishing, especially compared to the 1st half. A flat attack is all well and good when it's done at pace. Second half it was flat and static. Everything seemed to be up the middle, with no shape outwide whatsoever. This has been the case in each of the games we've played poorly this season, and needs addressing.

: Mon May 04, 2009 10:24 pm  

G1 wrote:

I think he's spot on about the Buderus/Diskin issue and the McGuire point.

We looked loads more structured with two halves and a running LF. Maybe with McGuire, Burrow and Sinny we have too many chiefs and not enough Indians?

Until McGuire stops impersonating a headless chicken then it's Burrow and Sinfield for the halves.

This is one of the key factors that needs fixing at the moment, you've summarised pretty well, it shouldn't be about removing McGuire but fundamentally changing his game.

His basic instinct is to run the ball, utilising pace and elusiveness that has served him so well for the best part of 20 years. If he is to move his career successfully into its next stage, his initial priority should be to pass the ball and look to create for team mates. Take the ball on the move, and put colleagues into gaps. He has that passing game in his armoury but it appears infrequently as he dances like a headless chicken.

He's a great player, and will continue to score tries for fun; what Leeds need now is a great stand off in the traditional sense. I reckon thats the solution to the slightly stale half back combination in the long term as Sinfield will only ever be a quality stand in stand off.

: Tue May 05, 2009 4:43 pm  

Maverick Rhino wrote:

This is one of the key factors that needs fixing at the moment, you've summarised pretty well, it shouldn't be about removing McGuire but fundamentally changing his game.

His basic instinct is to run the ball, utilising pace and elusiveness that has served him so well for the best part of 20 years. If he is to move his career successfully into its next stage, his initial priority should be to pass the ball and look to create for team mates. Take the ball on the move, and put colleagues into gaps. He has that passing game in his armoury but it appears infrequently as he dances like a headless chicken.

He's a great player, and will continue to score tries for fun; what Leeds need now is a great stand off in the traditional sense. I reckon thats the solution to the slightly stale half back combination in the long term as Sinfield will only ever be a quality stand in stand off.

McGuire is a wonderful elusive runner and backer up but has never been an ideal SO. In the first half Sinfield gave shape to our attack which was lost when McGuire came on. However I must say that the second half performance from the pack was woeful and that made McGuire's job much more difficult

: Tue May 05, 2009 6:03 pm  

1st Half: 2 - Penalties, 5 Knock Ons, 1 - Pass To Opposition, 1 Forward Pass, 1 Kick Out On The Full

= 10 Errors in Total

2nd Half: 4 - Penalties, 5 Knock Ons, 1 - Pass In To Touch, 2 Kicks Out On The Full, 1 Tackled Into Touch.

= 13 Errors in Total

Timings of errors:

1st Half - 1, 5, 6, 14, 20, 23, 25, 29, 36, 39

2nd Half - 40, 45, 52, 55, 58, 58, 61, 63, 66, 71, 73, 77, 78

Edit: As per F R's post below.

: Tue May 05, 2009 6:04 pm  

tvoc wrote:

1st Half: 2 - Penalties, 5 Knock Ons, 1 - Pass To Opposition, 1 Forward Pass, 1 Kick Out On The Full

= 10 Errors in Total

2nd Half: 4 - Penalties, 5 Knock Ons, 1 - Pass In To Touch, 1 Forward Pass, 2 Kicks Out On The Full, 1 Tackled Into Touch.

= 13 Errors in Total

Timings of errors:

1st Half - 1, 5, 6, 14, 20, 23, 25, 29, 36, 39

2nd Half - 40, 45, 52, 55, 58, 58, 61, 63, 66, 71, 73, 77, 78

Twenty three (penalties/mistakes) too many?

Most boring RLfans post ever?

: Tue May 05, 2009 6:05 pm  

FearTheVee wrote:

Most boring RLfans post ever?

Thank you. I aim to please.