He gave BJB the number 2 shirt but preferred Smith.
I think if the players deserve to be in the team on merit then that`s not a bad thing.
To pick Kirke ahead of possibly Clarkson and Moore does make that seem someone is telling porkies.

Sorry but Smith doesn't deserve number 2 shirt and I always thought single numbers were first team choice??

Buderus wouldn't be happy being on the bench

Just as well he wasn't then isn't it.

Exactly

Gosh where do you find the time ?

For a lot of the time in Leeds colours he was wasn't he ??

He spent a lot of time on the bench didn't he ?? I remember Diskin starting many times.

Ah but he was though

You thought wrong. Otherwise it would be pretty dispiriting to have been given the number 18 shirt and know that, whatever you did in training, you could only play if someone else was injured.

Not withstanding that, to name but a few, Peacock, JJB and Sinfield don't have single numbers...

At Leeds numbers 1 to 17 usually roughly equate to the anticipated gameday squad selections when exeryone is available. Indeed when the numbers are announced at Headingley during pre-season Leeds usually talk in terms of players moving up the numbers as a sign of promotion within the squad.

While some posters are having a bit of fun here can any of them actual point to an example of a player given such a lofty squad number without an expectation of featuring regularly when fit? Of course McShane has been selected in both opening fixtures so far so cannot be considered an example of such as yet.

SL Era number 9's at Leeds:
1996 - Mick Shaw
1997 - Wayne Collins
1998 to 2000 - Lee Jackson
2001 - Robbie Mears
2002 to 2008 - Matt Diskin
2009 to 2011 - Danny Buderus
2012 - Paul McShane

No, but I would suggest that if you award a squad number and the person you give it to doesn't appear the best option in training in subsequent weeks, you can change your mind.

I'm sure we'll see plenty of game time from McShane this year, but you can't assume you're in the team just because you have a 1-17 squad number.

Squad numbers shouldn't come into it. But been the only player in that position who is fit to play should.

El D.
My own pov is that Mcshane was awarded the 9 shirt on merit ,his pre-season form points to that and listening to our coach about form been the re-mit for selection then i think Mcshane should be starting at 9 and at the very least deserves more than 10 minutes from 2 games.

With the departure of Buderus and no top line hooker being available to sign, McShane was the senior specialist hooker at the club and so it was obvious that he would therefore get the 9 shirt. However having the shirt should not guarantee him the position because although promising he is not the finished or proven article yet.

In fact despite the negative comments about Burrow starting in the 2 games so far IMO Burrow has more 1st team game time experience at hooker than McShane does despite the fact that he is primarily a 7. The coach has gone for experience in the run up to this important WCC game but he may yet spring a suprise lineup for the big game.

It is a long season and McShane will get plenty of chances. With Hood getting injured the coach has tried an experiment that may or may not work out. But last year his handling of Burrow was a major reason in us winning the Championship.

I don't think he has been given enough opportunity to prove that hooker is the best place for him

Thought he had a good game tonight.

McShane was spot on tonight, full of aggression in defence, great kicking game and can act as a 2nd scrum half if needed.

Definately, thought McDermott used them both well. There was a period in the 2nd half where McShane was playing scrum-half and Burrow hooker, looks comfortable at this level.

Liam Hood looks real class.....BUT McShane did not deserve to be dropped. Why can't we have [uall[/u three in the first 17 ? McShane starting at 9, Hood on the bench and of course Burrow back to starting 7.

Having Burrow then have that 'roaming' freedom to jump in at dummy half or 1st receiver with McShane and Hood alternating to complement him would really test defences (as proven in the WCC)

I think it will come eventually Nantwiche i think they (Mcshane and Hood) are been handled with "kid gloves" at this moment in time.
Saying that i agree it should be Mcshane at 9 and Hood on the bench with Burrow at 7 now but we have to trust the coaching team.

Not so long ago I would have said why ? I do have more faith now....but it still puzzles me. It's as if Sinfield is immovable now from SO. McGuire and Burrow both demand a starting position so......stick Burrow in at starting hooker regardless seems to be the mantra.

Who gives a toss. We're winning games aren't we?

I think there's way too much emphasis on players being "dropped" we have a big squad with a lot of competition for places and are at the start of a long season where we need to peak at the end. Rotation is a very sensible approach while we have relatively few injuries.

That's patently nonsense... Correct me if I am wrong, but is it not just as likely a player will suffer an injury in the under 20's match ??

We need two hookers, Hood and McShane both offer something different, Burrow isn't a hooker. I don't see why anyone has to go anywhere?