Go on then, at what age does a player get too old to adapt and learn new skills?



A certain No 6 that you seem to rate has shown a remarkable ability to develop into a different role over the last few years, and specifically in the last 12 months. Have you not just defined him as too old to do just that?

McGuire hasn't developed new skills - all he did last year was raise his game - the majority of his tries were individual efforts where he used his game awareness and existing skills to score i.e. he took the game by the scruff of the neck and squeezed it. Did his kicking game improve during that period - not that I can see.



What happens with most players is they develop a degree of consistency and refinement as they get older, they seldom develop new skills.

Some players fail to addapt from a young age, other players can keep on addapting till they stop playing. I don't think age dictates when you stop leading and your ability to change your game

To suit your argument you seem to be ignoring his developing role as a playmaker, his developing ability over the last few years to create play and give the decisive pass, and focussing on his natural instincts to run the ball.



Come on, this is an easy opportunity to praise McGuire (and probably deliver a cheap shot in Sinfield's direction in the process!)



Anyway, at what age do players stop learning? I agree with Ferdy, age is nothing to do with it. A talented coach, on the other hand ....

McDermot should not have to teach the players how to tackle, pass, keep their gob shut etc, and for that the players do need to take some responsibility - However... the players have to play to the structures that are laid out in training, that inevitably is decided by the management team. Regardless of how good technically the players are, if they are given a strategy/structure in training that does not work on game day, individual mistakes will increase. I have been one of Sinfields biggest critics this year for his wayard passing - whether that be interceptions, or awful hospital passes. Do I think he is poor technically, absolutely not, but when he is playing to a structure that isnt working, or a 'touch and pass style' attack, he is going to start throwing passes that he shouldnt, as he will be throwing these in training all week.



As for defence, the best defensive teams in the world have a clear focus on exactly that. If you spend the majority of the week training on defensive structure and technique, this inevitably shows on game day with a hunger in defence, and good technique. If you spend training all week playing harlem globetrotter touch and pass, defence will be awful on game day and the attack will have zero structure and will be littered with suicide passes and offloads with zero respect for possession or field position. Whatever is happening on the training pitch will always manifest its way onto the playing field.



Which leads me on to the indiscipline! Players are getting frustrated, probably because the structure they are playing to isnt working - and if its true that they dont agree with the style of play, it becomes very difficult to focus 100% on the task at hand and be mentally aware for 80 mins. This frustration rears its head, we give away silly penalties, back chat the ref because we are now even more furstrated, leading to worse field position, more defence... it becomes a vicious circle.



However, as I said at the begining, the players should take some responsibility for their own performance, effort, ill-discipline - But its McD's job to punish/deal with these individual mistakes. If the coach isnt going to sort it, who is?



A good coach would bring in a discipline in both defensive and attacking structure, alongside disciplined individual performances - anybody who consitantly breaks this wouldnt get in the team (there has always to be some allowance for off the cuff individual play, whether that be a risky offload, or somebody shooting out in defence for a big hit - but this shouldnt be relied on, shouldnt be the norm, and should be allowed to take over the overall game plan or team structures).

To answer the thread topic, I don't think all the blame can be placed on McDermott's shoulders. This situation has been in the making for several years, so there are plenty of bases to cover. However, I'd take exception with anyone arguing it is just our turn to go through an unsuccessful period. Bradford are going through this at the moment due to a lack of finance - but this isn't a problem for Leeds (as far as I know anyway). Saints OTOH have maintained their 'big 4' status for most of SL, even though they've not necessarily won something every season. Leeds should be in this boat, and if this season ends with Leeds joining the mid-table also-rans then heads should roll.



GH has to shoulder much of the blame IMO. He's been great for Leeds but has contributed to our decline in the following ways:



- Giving a coach with a poor record as a SL coach a long term deal

- Overseeing our lacklustre recruitment (filling quota spots with sub-standard NRL talent, retaining players who are past it, and failing to compete with other SL clubs for promising players e.g. Shenton, McCarthy-Scarsbrook, Ferguson etc)



Then there's McDermott. Our defence has been terrible all season and he seems incapable of acknowledging that it is a problem, let alone doing something about it. Now the attack is on the wane. Sadly, I don't think he'll be leaving anytime soon. What is worse, now is the time that Leeds need someone with enough long-term vision to decide on recruitment and retention for the following seasons. If rumours are to be believed about us going for Lynch and L'Estrange then I can see things getting a lot worse... I doubt McDermott has the eye to spot NRL talent that will be affordable either.



The players also have to take some of the blame. Perhaps they feel that putting in below-par showings on the field is the best way to change the coach, but I doubt it. It is clear from the amount of back-chatting to the referee that there are too many prima-donnas at the club at the moment, but this may also be due to certain individuals struggling to come to terms with the fact that they aren't the stars they once were.

I personally don't think last season was any different to the previous years I just think he upped his game a bit and Sinfield and Burrow were unable to maintain the standards of previous years so McGuire really stood out. He also has more options in his game than either of the other two - speed when compared to Sinfield and vision when compared to Burrow - its easier for him he more naturally gifted than either of the other two.



I think players will stop learning new skills at academy levels - they may refine their existing skills i.e. experience - but seldom do they change from that point on. What has JP added to his game that he didn't have when he joined Leeds? OK give me a player who has added some skills he didn't have when he was a junior. I ask again has any of the 3 developed a kicking game since the time they broke into the first team?

I think I know what you are getting at but really you should be talking about techniques or natural abilities rather than skills. In coaching terms players are always developing skills as a skill is the application of a technique or ability at the correct time in a game. A player can't counjure up abilities (not usually), so you rarely see players suddenly getting faster at 25, or learning how to goalkick in their testimonial season. The most obvious example I've come across is handling. You can tell from a really early age if a kid will ever be able to ball handle well. They may be built, have pace to burn etc. but I've seen so many kids through to adult rugby who have teflon coated hands and just can't catch. Even at the age I coach you can tell who will have good hands and who won't.



However, most of rugby (any sport in fact) is doing the right thing at the right time, there is no time point in a players career where they can't learn this or get better at this and the history of the game is full of apparantly ordinary 16-20 year olds who go on to become legends.

These are elite players surely they know how to defend - there is only two ways man on man or slide - is it really that tough. How much of defending is about communication on the field i.e. talking to each other? Every play is like a free kick in soccer you have a chance to set your defence. The tries Leeds conceded on Friday 2 came from Sinfield gifts nothing to do with structure, the rest was simply poor tackling technique - something McDermott should not need to teach elite players.



Discipline has been an issue with this group of players for years - if you were going to drop players because of it then you would half a side.



In terms of attack - McDermott is hamstrung with the resources at his disposal. The pack is too small and too slow, there is no pace in the back line and the half backs are stuck in a rut - McClennan could see the writing on the wall!!



McDermott cannot structure an attack that doesn't play to the strengths of the halves e.g. he cannot have plays that involve a fast playmaker like Benji Marshall or someone with a strong kicking game like Jamie Soward. As a result Leeds have become predictable and easy to defend. Leeds have always played an off the cuff style - why is everyone now asking for a structured attack something so alien to this group of players that it could never work.



I am not defending McDermott because he appears well out of his depth but he has been dealt a seriously bad hand - until some of the sacred cows are sacrificed Leeds will be a mid table for the foreseeable future.

You are saying exactly what I said they simply refine the skills they already have - to a point where they become second nature and they can be done under the greatest pressure. If they have been coached properly at junior level they already know how to catch and pass a ball - you hope they have a decent grasp of the basics by the time they get into the first team. Rugby League is not an overly technical game - that is the joy of watching it you pass it you catch it and you run with it.

There you go, you didn't need asking twice









You have just done it for me! JP as a junior, through his struggles at Featherstone and near release by Elliott, a classic late developer, by his own admission.



What about adding new skills to a whole squad? What about Smith teaching the whole Leeds squad new ways to hold the ball one handed, resulting in an improved offload game? What about Smith teaching the forwards a new tackling technique to eliminate high shots (where the defender hold their hands in front in a praying motion before contact)?



What about Bluey teaching defenders to hold ball carriers upright for a couple of seconds before grounding them to legitimately buy slower play the balls early in 2008?



Of course you can teach players new skills. Its a fundemental part of being a coach.



Anyhow, we've established that you think coaching a player anything new after the age of 18 is pointless.







Where are you going with this? What I said was that our 3 kickers provided a solid enough kicking game to win 4 championships. They are quite capable of the role, the problems in attack lie elsewhere, the kicking game isn't the root cause.

There is so much more to defending than simply front on, or side tackling. Communication is obviously a massive part, but the defensive structure and strategy plays just as much if not more.

Some teams rely on line speed to win the collision, some play a compact defense and rely on a sliding system for if the ball is spread wide, some (Wigan, Hudds) rely on getting as many numbers into the tackle and wrestle techniques to slow the time between collision and play the ball. All of these, plus having certain players defending certain areas of the pitch have a big bearing on the effectiveness of those front on, or side on tackles.

If the player cannot be confident in his defensive structue, and be 100% confident the other players around him will play their role, he will be caught in 2 minds as to whether to move up, move in, go ball and all, go low, go high... that split second thought can and is the difference between winning the collision, effecting the tackle - or getting left woefully out of position.



Again, I am not saying the players are blameless, as there have been some real basic missed tackles, and some general poor play and attitude. But I again go back to the fact that if the correct structures are in place, the players can be more confident in everything they do.



As for a structured attack, yes we have played alot of off the cuff stuff over the years, but again even this is structured. It's always been on the back of laying a platform with good hard yards, and wearing down the opposition with decent defence. Once this has been achieved, the off the cuff offload game can be used against a tiring outfit. You cant start a game like that though, because you'll end up doing too much defending, give away too much field position, and inevitably be knackered by the last 20, allowing decent teams to rack up a score.