We need to separate the issues with the attack from the defence. Defence is about structure, technique and plain hard work. With the right structure and attitude a defence can still function well even with a number of kids playing. What I've seen this year looks like last year - a team with no structure and little or no teamwork in defence.



I have a lot of time for Watkins, but to be honest the coach ought to be telling him that if he tries to throw a flick pass in the next two games he'll be dropped. Simple as. If that means not scoring a try that's tough. The lad needs to run before he can walk, and sorting out his defence and simple ball control must come before the flashy stuff. On the other hand, he also needs to be shipped to left centre, and if Senior is to be retained at all, he should move to the right.



Most importantly, I hope the coach understands that our defensive record is dreadful. And that he has the guts to drop players who aren't performing. With the emergence of the likes of BJB, Hardaker and Watkins, there's absolutely no reason to persist with Senior or Webb if they are not performing.



Just on the subject of possible replacements, didn't Leeds sign Kettlewell as a specialist reserve halfback?

Leeds coach Briant McDermott:

"I thought generally we took another couple of steps forward defensively. We showed outstanding commitment to each other in the first half but, on the flipside, conceded some soft ones which we're going to learn from.



Has Daryl Powell returned in disguise? Utter rubbish. Conceding 30 points at home should be simply unacceptable.

We're soft in the middle of the park (understandable given the injuries to the forwards) and also soft at centre.. Watkins is a huge talent but defensivley a fair bit off yet.. Senior as we all know is past it.. tough season ahead me thinks if we don't get players back soon

Having watched the game back I think much of the criticism is unjustified. I don't see why Sinfield has been singled out, or Burrow for that matter. Sinfield worked very hard and was again our most creative fulcrum. The team functioned well in both facets of the game up to about the 65th minute mark.



I note a complete lack of criticism for Buderus who was comprehensively outplayed by Roby and who was secondary to McShane as an attacking threat. He also fell of a few tackles, usually a strong point of him.



Watkins must work on his ball retention and decision making but as a relatively inexperienced player with undoubted skill and talent I see no reason to get on his back just yet. I can live with him learning his trade in this way and am confident he will come good.



I do share every one's negativity WRT the coaching staff. The team does not build any pressure, has poor completion and that told at the end when they shipped in 18 points in the last 15 mins.



BTW, I predict this week Kirke will have double his carries to an eye popping 8 during the whole game.

Agree with all, except about Burrow. But with regards your second to last paragraph, I just don't think the coaching staff have any choice but to play the way we are regardless of completion rate. We just don't have the players big enough and capable enough to play a safety first game. You have it spot on with Kirke, which is a perfect example of why the coaching staff are playing the way they are. We have a mobile team, but not a team that will win the collission and build hard yards. Things may well change slightly when Peacock and Kylie are back, and with Cross adjusted to the move.

What about the 2nd half against Hull?

From the 5th minute of the 2nd half when we lost Delaney the team dug in ,worked through their sets and went into "grind" mode.

They have shown that they can do it but if/when we get a sniff of momentum they try to score off every pass and where it worked against Salford it failed this week.

Don't get me wrong i think the coach deserves this season at the very least and the chance to impliment his ideas with a full squad but we can/have played a more conservative style this year.

I'm not so sure that is a good example rhinoms. We were already in a strong lead and in the ascendancy.



What I was trying to say is that I am not convinced the players currently avialable can build momentum by just trying to make yards. I don't think they have the size, or desire to do so. The passing game suits their mobility much better.



Only my opinion, but I just don't think it is as easy as people think to change to this safety first approach. And in all honesty, personally I would rather lose and play like Saturday than lose struggling to make yards and grinding out things.

Here we go with the sport v business arguement - do fans want to be entertained or are fans just happy with a win?



GH looks at the numbers and see a distinct/significant drop in revenue on the back of the boring performance the previous season and in his judgement a different style is required if revenues are to returned to the required levels?

Sorry I meant 2004 - when Lockyer was at his very best

From a saints point of veiw, I think you're being a little harsh on some players.

Cross for instance, certainly seemed to be difficult to stop.

You had a lot of good field position, despite me feeling like our pack performed better, so you can thank Sinfields kicking for that. Problem was that you didn't convert when you were on our line.



Watkins got caught out twice by Meli, but he's young and talented enough to learn from those mistakes.



You also managed a lot of decent offloads, which would have seen you get the better of some teams. I thought Burrow looked dangerous when he supported these, but lacked ideas elsewhere.

Do you think fans look at it that way? I'd have thought, in order of priority the factors in attending were:

Expecting to win

Reputation (in terms of name rather than ability) of the opposition

Match day experience (all the way from getting to the ground & away, to seating/standing position, to weather)



with feelings about the style of play the team adopt all well below those factors.

Fans priorities for the club they support in order of significance:



1. WINNING

2. DAYLIGHT

3. STYLE OF PLAY, QUALITY OF BURGERS, PIES AND BEER, NICE SHIRT, ETC.



GH has looked at the numbers alrighty.



Those numbers are telling him that the current Leeds squad - despite his rather spurious claim last year that it's the best squad Leeds have ever assembled and retained - is not likely to be a match for Wigan in the success stakes this year.



His thinly veiled critique of Wigan and their style of play is also a thinly veiled admission of Leeds limited prospects for success in 2011. One way to avoid criticism and maintain fans loyalty during trying times is to lay the blame somewhere else. This might involve a criticism of the style and tactics employed elsewhere which do nothing for the game as a spectacle, and which effectively strangle the life out of flamboyantly entertaining, innovative and creative sides like... erm... Leeds.



He appears to have installed a willing sidekick as coach who is prepared to accept the agenda, the challenge and the instructions.



I'm guessing Brian McClennan wasn't quite so willing to accept those same terms.