: Mon Mar 09, 2009 5:03 pm  

The Wood wrote:

I'm at Staffordshire, and it doesn't take a genius to work it out.

We were flat, 1 dimensional with no intensity in our attack. Thats why we couldn't score despite the number of chances on their line. I actually struggled to see any improvement from last week at Wakey.

Unbelievable.

So we had loads of attacks on their line - how many did we have on Wakefield's?

It was a massive improvement.

: Mon Mar 09, 2009 6:14 pm  

Antro wrote:

Unbelievable.

So we had loads of attacks on their line - how many did we have on Wakefield's?

It was a massive improvement.

Leeds were not at the races, Wakefield were.

And first receivers standing still, passes hitting the floor in almost every single set of six, attacking line looking very similar to our defensive line. That's an improvement, is it?

Fact is, Leeds showed up tired and under prepared for us yet still managed to score twice in five minutes, then couldn't be bothered for the rest of the match. I though the scoreline flattered us TBH and papered up a lot of cracks. We will get thrashed by Quins on Saturday.

: Mon Mar 09, 2009 8:09 pm  

The Wood wrote:

I'm at Staffordshire, and it doesn't take a genius to work it out.

We were flat, 1 dimensional with no intensity in our attack. Thats why we couldn't score despite the number of chances on their line. I actually struggled to see any improvement from last week at Wakey.

Are you the new coach hater a la Ash with lowes

: Mon Mar 09, 2009 8:38 pm  

The Wood wrote:

Leeds were not at the races, Wakefield were.

Leeds are the best team in the country, and had a pretty strong side out, Wakefield had a reserve side out - that evens up who was at the races.

: Mon Mar 09, 2009 9:23 pm  

Wire On The Telly wrote:

Are you the new coach hater a la Ash with lowes

No. Taking Leeds' bad performance out of the equation, I wasn't impressed with how we played yesterday at all. My only concern with Smith is how he will gel the team together when he couldn't do the same job with England. Admittedly he has a longer time frame with us, but it doesn't sit pretty with his reputation.

: Mon Mar 09, 2009 9:30 pm  

Antro wrote:

Leeds are the best team in the country, and had a pretty strong side out, Wakefield had a reserve side out - that evens up who was at the races.

Wakefield had half a side out, yes. But its been proven anybody in any team can beat anybody time and time again. That was the best Wakefield performance I had seen for some time despite who was in it and they ripped us to shreds because we couldn't perform.

Leeds had a near full strength side out, but I can't remember them playing so badly in ages. Yet we played just as bad and deservingly lost for the reasons I have already outlined.

Now realistically, who do you think will win out of Leeds and Wakefield when they meet?

: Mon Mar 09, 2009 9:45 pm  

The Wood wrote:

Leeds were not at the races, Wakefield were.

And first receivers standing still, passes hitting the floor in almost every single set of six, attacking line looking very similar to our defensive line. That's an improvement, is it?

Fact is, Leeds showed up tired and under prepared for us yet still managed to score twice in five minutes, then couldn't be bothered for the rest of the match. I though the scoreline flattered us TBH and papered up a lot of cracks. We will get thrashed by Quins on Saturday.

I'm with you on this one. I think any super league club would have done that leeds team on sunday (maybe not salford).

: Mon Mar 09, 2009 10:04 pm  

The Wood wrote:

:lol:

No. Taking Leeds' bad performance out of the equation, I wasn't impressed with how we played yesterday at all. My only concern with Smith is how he will gel the team together when he couldn't do the same job with England. Admittedly he has a longer time frame with us, but it doesn't sit pretty with his reputation.

Not withstanding the fact he was trying to bring together players who don't meet for 6/12 months at a time.

I actually think it reflects more on the players not pulling together than Smith not being able to make them come together as a group.

: Mon Mar 09, 2009 11:21 pm  

The Wood wrote:

Leeds were not at the races, Wakefield were.

And first receivers standing still, passes hitting the floor in almost every single set of six, attacking line looking very similar to our defensive line. That's an improvement, is it?

Fact is, Leeds showed up tired and under prepared for us yet still managed to score twice in five minutes, then couldn't be bothered for the rest of the match. I though the scoreline flattered us TBH and papered up a lot of cracks. We will get thrashed by Quins on Saturday.

There goes your credibility.

Leeds looked rusty with ball in hand but their defence was terrific on the whole, as it was from both sides. Higham's try was a poor one to concede for them, but Briers' and Hicks' came from good quality drives from our forwards and quick ball.

A side that "couldn't be bothered" would have folded in that second half. Leeds are a champion side and came up with a fine sucker punch.