I appreciate your point, but im pretty sure if we repeated 05 on a regular basis and played to an 'elite standard' but won nothing, it would not be long before many fans patience ran out.

It has taken a long time to lose the chokers tag that was levelled at the team around that time

Because you enjoyed uncompetitive walkovers as long as Leeds were the ones putting up cricket scores.



I prefer competitive games, even if we're on the wrong end or the score is close.



In 2005 Leeds had a string of league wins where they beat Widnes 66-8, Huddersfield 54-10, Warrington 38-6, Salford 30-12, Bradford 42-12, London 64-6, Wigan 38-14, Widnes 42-20, Huddersfield 44-14, Leigh 60-4.



I was at most of those games and there was hardly a competitive match amongst them. They were quite dull. In fact, in most Leeds barely had to get out of third gear. Those are not my idea of entertaining rugby. They fit my definition of flat track rugby. The whole of those games combined, every last one of them, doesn't hold a candle to Leeds final two games last year in terms of quality or entertainment. Not even close

Because they aren't included in season tickets. Attendances seem significantly higher for finals than for league fixtures though.





Not for the circus of skills then?







More than none. So it's more true than your suggestion that we cannot beat Australia.





You will see long range passes, pin point kicks, reverse flicks from players you would never expect to see it from. A fantastic, but meaningless, exhibition of skill.

To answer your points:

1.Attendances for finals are higher because of two factors - neutrals going for the occassion and hangers on who never attend a regular game have little interest other than to say I went to the game - the idea that these people are going because of the high stakes on offer is laughable. I suppose CC semi finals are poorly attended because the stakes are simply insufficient?



2.You are saying high stakes makes for higher attendances - I gave you two examples of high stakes not resulting in high attendances and your obtuseness raises it ugly head!!



3. When did we last beat the Aussies in any game, 2006? - hardly frequent would you not agree!! when did we last beat the Aussies in a high stakes game 1972? so I would suggest history shows that our chances are closer to my none than your frequent!!



4. Half the game is defending you will never see that in training - you can never create in training real game situations. You will see virtually everything in training in a game you will never see everything in a game in training. I want to see Slater ghosting past a defender at full pace you will never see that down at Kirkstall!! The Aussies are like thoroughbred horses they stay in the contest until they decide to accelerate usually 15 mins before the end and then see who can go with them - that you can never see in training.



Fans do not want to see turgid negative rugby, part of moving from winter was create conditions where attacking skills could prevail. The NRL is suffering with to much negative play now, attendances are down and this will continue until the emphasis returns to attacking skillful play.

1. TBH, although a consistent attendee at Grand Finals, I never see many neutrals there. I'd reckon TV viewing figures are also significantly higher for playoff games and CC games, even if we suffer from apathetic fans - who we can't seem to get to get to fantastic events.



2....and when Australia play the minor nations over here, what are the attendances like for that? If internationals show the sports best players showing their best skills, why do the CC final and Grand Final get higher attendances than even England (or GB) vs Australia?



3. So now you're saying we can beat Australia?



4. Half of training is typically defending. I haven't claimed you can create real game situations in training. I claimed you will see top level skills more frequently in training than in matches, but that without something at stake those skills are meaningless.

In June we won 4 out of 4, with 206 points scored to 32 conceded. Including racking up 70 points in successive weeks. Which was funny while it lasted (it included Ali's 5 try haul at Wakey, a game I remember more for the pitchside announcer's rendition of "love really hurts without you" in a very Phoenix Nights-esque pre-match than anything else) but hardly thrilling.



We racked up more than 50 points on 10 occasions, passing 70 points 4 times, only one of which was against non-SL opposition.



The novelty does wear off after a while.

I get what you are saying here. But point scoring aside, what I don't understand is that you seem to be comparing dire performances with competitive. Matches last year were not competitive they were poor entertainment. Fully agree with the point you are making if both teams produce a superb brand of rugby and the score is close, but that didn't happen often last year.



Just to put the record straight. Out of 27 of regular super league rounds last season, only 9 matches where Leeds played resulted in a team winning by two scores or less. Of those 9 only 3 games in truth, Wigan at home, Wigan away, and Huddersfield away was anything close to decent rugby league played.



By contrast, in 2005 out of 28 regular super league rounds, only 6 matches where Leeds played resulted in a team winning by two scores or less. That's a 3 match difference. And out of those six matches all but one, were truely good competitive matches played with quality rugby.



Competitive is not one team dumbing down the rugby in order to match their inferior opponents. We need to get the inferior opponent playing out of their skin and at an intensity that can match their better opponent.

And it wore off very quickly for me in 2005. The season went from exciting at the WCC stage to fun being champions to very boring very quickly to hugely underwhelming as a results of the failures.



As I've said, give me 2011 achievements to 2005s under achievements any day of the week.

To be fair I am not the typicla supporter in that I live 70 miles away, with a nasty bit of M1 between work and the ground. Without the flexibility to leave work much earlier than 4:30 its touch and go as to whether I can get there, and get parked in time to make the kick off. I usually have a game on a Saturday, so have to get back that night. the whole thing makes it unfeasible to make Friday night games. THats why I pick and choose my games, because I don't have much choice. If I live in Sheffield or nearer I would probably have a season ticket.



You point is valid though that people attending matches and buying merchandise is the main reason we have the most resources in the league. If people stop attending for whatever reason we may start to struggle, as Bradford have. In the event that it happens I would trust that we would deal with the situation better than they did, whether that be to lower prices to entice more people in, or improve the quality. At the moment though there is no need to do anything. the team are successful on the field, and though they are not dominant in the league games, they are still the best performing financially by some distance.

I kind of agree with Gotchas point about the lowering of standards, but it still doesn't mean its not entertaining. I would prefer a ding dong battle with a top team, like the game at Knowley road in 2007, but I'd take a last gasp win over the likes of Cas over a 70pt steam rollering if I were at the game.



I never get satisfaction from a defeat playing well, it also happens so rarely. When Leeds play well, they are rarely beaten

Oh make no mistake, as I said on the other page, the game at home to Wigan last season for me was a great game with Leeds incredibly unlucky. That was competitive, but also gave good rugby.



Just those performances in the regular rounds were few and far between.