I'm assuming this is a troll attempt, but i'll be the one who bites first,



Ask 30,000+ Leeds fans who went to Wembley and ask them if he got it so wrong when it mattered. Just remember how many play-off series it took Leeds to win the big prize, despite winning a challenge cup in '99.

It took 7.



But leeds were only genuine conteners for 3 of those. (98,99,03) IMO.



Winning the grand final is damned hard. What warrington will/are finding out is being able to win the CC does not suddenly mean you will magically start winning the big prize. The 2 are not mutually exclusive.



It's often much maligned but the Grand final really is the true test of champions. Nothing seperates the wheat from the chaff like this does.

Ahem..... shouldnt that be "the 2 are mutually exclusive", i.e not linked?

Can't understand it considering Tony Smith is the messiah and a tactical genius who leaves nothing to chance, particularly when it comes to taking all teams and all games seriously.

Sorry but i disagree with that, the grand final under its present format can allow a loser to be champions. Loser and champions doesn't quite work together in the same sentence.



I'm not saying that whoever wins the grand final doesn't deserve it, its just that if a team wins the grand final and loses a game along the way i don't view them as true champions in the context of the word champions.

Ask 30k Leeds fans which comp they would rather win - a resounding GF everytime - that is the premier comp in this sport in Europe.



I ask again - how did Smith get it so wrong two weeks running when it really mattered?

A champion can only champion in your eyes if they don't lose a game?

Did he get it wrong or were they beaten by better sides on the night?

I wouldn't blame Smith. Huddersfield came out with a fast hard defence and simply didn't let Warrington play and before they knew it they had lost the game. In the 2nd half ist was a good come back from the Wires but I think more to do with Huddersfield taking their foot off the gas. Momentum is so important in the modern game and if you surrender it you can lose points fast.

He had the fire power to beat Saints - who were without either first choice half back and they had home advantage against a side they beat easily three times this year.



His side failed to play to anything like their full potential in either game - whilst the players have to take some of the stick the coach has to also shoulder some of the blame?



He was heralded by the likes of Danny and Gareth as the difference at Wembley when the team performed when they don't?

Did McClennan get it wrong in the CC Final and was he just beaten and out-thought by a more tactically astute and gifted coach on the day? Or did the team just get beaten by a better side on the day?

If comments are anything to go by the team failed to play to McClennan's plan - so a bit of both McClennan should have been able to get the players to deliver and the players should have took heed of the coach's plan. The players thought they knew best - sadly a failed strategy!!



Are you saying that both Brown and Potter out thought Smith? and were more tactically astute?