Re: Getting left behind? : Wed Oct 22, 2014 10:45 am  

I would agree with a lot of the above. The away match at Saints was an example of a problem which was also present in a few games we won. Specifically, we struggled to break down pretty much any decent defence for most of the season (the few exceptions coming early on). There were a few times when we were dominant for long periods, but never really put the game to bed. In a few cases (Wire at home also stands out) we got through on some very tough defence, but I felt that we'd had the field position to put the game to bed and not done enough with the ball.

If anything, watching other teams on Sky, that tendency for both teams in most matches to have spells in ascendancy has seemed more pronounced than ever this year, and it's been the teams who are best able to put points on the board who come out on top. We didn't score enough points when we had our good spells last year. Our defence was very good, which was great to see. We need to hang onto that and put some more emphasis on attack. Not because it's pretty and adds entertainment, but because we'd win more matches.

Re: Getting left behind? : Wed Oct 22, 2014 11:05 am  

El Diablo wrote:

I would agree with a lot of the above. The away match at Saints was an example of a problem which was also present in a few games we won. Specifically, we struggled to break down pretty much any decent defence for most of the season

That game in particular sticks in my mind. We made some very easy yards up the field, and countless times put ourselves in good attacking positions. But we could just not find a way through. Saints defence in their own 20 was good, but we just kept going and going with the same plays that werent working. A lack of plan b....a phrase i've uttered more than once from the terraces this year.

Re: Getting left behind? : Wed Oct 22, 2014 11:07 am  

FarsleySteve wrote:

That game in particular sticks in my mind. We made some very easy yards up the field, and countless times put ourselves in good attacking positions. But we could just not find a way through. Saints defence in their own 20 was good, but we just kept going and going with the same plays that werent working. A lack of plan b....a phrase i've uttered more than once from the terraces this year.

We cant utilize a sub bench properly let alone having more than 1 game plan up our sleeve.

Re: Getting left behind? : Wed Oct 22, 2014 1:20 pm  

Those consecutive games we lost last year and some quite late on concerned me .It went from one to another and it got to the stage where I was expecting a defeat

Re: Getting left behind? : Wed Oct 22, 2014 1:30 pm  

An old saying, but if you want to go sideways with the ball in rugby league you first have to go forward.

By putting teams on the back foot with good drives and quick play the ball, you earn the right to exploit a retreating defence by getting your backs into space.

Leeds don't have a single forward who can dominate collision with the ball in hand and generate good ruck speed. Not one. The starting props look like they need a winch to get them off the floor every time they are tackled, and the bench options are powderpuff runners who get dominated in the tackle way too easily.

That's why to an extent it doesn't really matter who Leeds have at dummy half or at half-back, as they are getting zero space to work in and constantly coming up against set defensive lines. Before Leeds can unleash that backline and not have to rely on it creating chances for itself (as it did in the first half of the season pretty well), they need to have some forwards who can create space and momentum for it to work with.

Re: Getting left behind? : Wed Oct 22, 2014 1:54 pm  

Andy Gilder wrote:

Leeds don't have a single forward who can dominate collision with the ball in hand and generate good ruck speed. Not one.

Yet in the first half against Cas (and quite a lot of the second half) in the cup final everything was simple for us based on quick PTB's and dominant collisions by the forwards. If Clarke had been playing for us that day we would have destroyed Cas completely by half time. We did pretty well in the semi against Warrington as well.

I also know very well that general thinking is that you have to go forward before you can go wide, I like to think of it more of a rule that if you do make the half break up the middle and get a quick PTB then you MUST go wide.
But, if you don't stretch a defence you allow it to condense and then you will never win up the middle if the defence can safely stack the midfield and put 3-4 guys into the tackle without worrying about covering the wide areas. There has to be a tangible threat out wide that needs to be covered, so you have to attack with width sometimes - even if you are not winning the battle up-front, or use a kicking game that forces defenders to stay in wide areas.
My view is that this Leeds team does not surprise anypne when they go wide. With the pace we have we should look to attack wide 2/3 tackle from in or around our 20, and do something that I don't see anyone doing much these days, double up the centres. Get Moon and Watkins on the same side of the pitch linking well inside our 40 early in the tackle count, add Hardaker to that and watch the trouble it would cause the defence.

Re: Getting left behind? : Wed Oct 22, 2014 2:44 pm  

One thing Leeds used to do really well was attack from deep i.e. their own thirty with quick short paces out wide to the likes of Senior. We have potentially a really good backline for that type of attack but we don't seem to possess the same level of speed and skill to execute these plays.

We have never seriously troubled sides in the own 20 - we haven't had a half back with a half decent kicking game nor the attacking structure to create openings so it is no surprise to me that we cannot break sides down in their 20.

Re: Getting left behind? : Wed Oct 22, 2014 4:13 pm  

The only real set play we have is the dummy half pass to a prop (usually Peacock) Sinfield sweeping round and receiving it off Peacock, with a wedge play (lead runner and Zak out the back)... That's it... The grand sum of our attacking prowess in the opposition 20. This is usually preceded by 3 'nothing plays' to set it up, and if it doesn't work, kick to the opposite corner for Hall.

There is zero creativity in the 'red zone'. A big problem is that our halves are no threat with the ball in hand, so the defence can pick of the runners knowing they'll have the speed to react if either of our halves take the line on themselves. Only Burrow is a threat ball in hand.

Re: Getting left behind? : Wed Oct 22, 2014 7:55 pm  

The other issue with that wedge play, is that we never use the short ball to the "decoy" runner. It's obvious that the ball is going to go out the back, usually because the decoy goes through too early to be a threat to take the ball. Just once or twice a game, hit the lead runner with a no-look flat pass. Make the inside defenders think before they pass on to the outside players.

Re: Getting left behind? : Wed Oct 22, 2014 10:01 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

The point of mentioning the Magic game is that it was week 13 so half way and it was when things started to go down hill - Wigan's depleted team simply beat the crap and the confidence out of them. They were never the same team again after that.

The point about the second half of the season is that is the most up to date evidence we have of how the team is going. Since the Magic weekend they had wins against: Catalans (very lucky), Hull, Widnes, Hull KR and Salford hardly confidence boosting stuff. Catalans apart they didn't beat a top side since the Magic weekend.

The CC is an excuse in my opinion, the beat Saints late April so between May and August they played 1 game in the CC which was against a non SL side. So as a distraction it should not have been even a consideration for an elite professional player.

We still have the conundrum of why they played so badly when it really mattered against the Catalans? 2006 the team was sick of Smith and didn't want to play for him. Early 2007 was equally bad it was only after Smith announced his departure that things started to improve.

I am struggling to see why many on here think the top 4 is a mere formality - it is difficult to argue that the team is ageing and in decline other teams have strengthened and - in some cases - have better youth structures in place.

The point of mentioning the Magic game was that along with the Saints game you mentioned was that they were the only losses in the first half of the year, conveniently the only two matches you remember from that period.

You mention as has some others about how Wigan beat the cr@p out of us at Magic and others have said it showed teams how to beat us. Well Leeds being "soft" in the forwards and Wigan playing "tough" is hardly new information that people only realised at the Magic weekend. Why couldn't Wigan beat us at Headingley a few weeks earlier if it's that simple using that ploy? People can't honestly argue that Wigan only just stumbled across and tried this tactic against for the first time at the Etihad. Why didn't Warrington or Cas take advantage of this in the Cup? Why did Saints scrape past us with 12 men if we are so easy to batter?

Actually the first 'warning signs' came a week before Magic at Castleford. Yeah we picked up the win against a Cas team on a short turnaround but we started to show signs of dropping off.

It also seems important to point out (even though some will hate this as they don't like "excuses") but the time we dropped off also coincided with losing both starting hookers. Shortly after Hardaker and Ablett would pick up various bans (the former proving quite costly IMO in the home loss to Hudds where BJB had a 'mare against Brough). Sinfield missed a few with a back injury, Leuluai missed some too as did a couple more guys.

When we played Saints in the cup we had Hardaker, Sinfield, McGuire and Burrow all playing......those four wouldn't all feature again together until HKR at home. Rusty on that game but when Burrow came on then we slowly worked some good play in the final quarter. The week after home vs Cas......probably our best showing in the second half of the season (with all those players available) and one we should've won until Sinfield's brainfart. We then take all those key guys out again for the shambles vs Bradford and London but see what we're capable of in the cup games with those guys in. We then had no McGuire or Burrow for the Saints and Wigan losses. We then lost to Catalans in the playoffs.....granted like I've mentioned, we simply weren't good enough on the day (yet Briscoe catches the ball and we're through for how poor we were) it can happen in sport. Whilst some are loathe to even hear the words "Challenge Cup" and to them as individuals it was a distant memory it's foolish to not recognise that teams in many sports fail to lift again after a cup win......professional players they may be but rising again to the standard required in a few weeks after getting the one prize they probably wanted most isn't as straight forward as some would like to make it seem for the sake of their argument.

When reviewing the season, if you're going to just focus on the losses then you might want to look at the line-ups and see how many key starters and how many of the spine in particular were missing in those games.