i think its obvious BM doesn't fancy mcshane

I said IF the Ellis news is correct!

So it does not make my argument irrelevant.



You have not answered my question even without Ellis. In order to play McShane, Hood and Burrow at the same time, as you suggest, who do you leave out (or 'drop' in your terms) Clarkson, Hauraki, Pitts or Smith. And do you think this is then a better balanced side?

I think you're missing the point. I agree Hood should have been given his chance but McShane has hardly been given a 'fair crack of the whip' with game time apart from the WCC....when he looked the part, alternated well with Burrow ...and did nowt wrong. He subsequently is 'dropped' to the under 20's ...my point is do you think there is any possibility that Burrow might be 'rotated' into the under 20's for example ?

As for Hall his name was just one I picked 'out of the hat' to again emphaize the point. Instead of Hall substitute his name with Peacock, or Bailey, or Lleulai ...etc. Do you think any of those wil be 'rotated' into the U-20's ?

McShane IMO is for some reason out of favour......quite the antithesis to Kirke who always somehow mysteriously seems to find favour.

Exactly. You just put it quite a bit more succinctly than me.

Without a doubt YES I would have all three (Burrow starting 7; McShane starting 9 and Hood off the bench) starting at the expense of Clarkson (done nothing exceptional to date),Hauraki (does he ever ?), Pitts (irrevelant at the moment owing to JJB's injury and who has surely just cemented his chance at Clarkson's expense)...and Smith (way off the pace for a starting first team place).

Anything else ?

At least I like your new avatar (why [i[udid[/u[/i you previously have a giraffe ?)

No. None of those players still learning their trade to the extent that both McShane and Hood are. They're all first team [iregulars[/i and if they get a [irest[/i that will be exactly what it is.

We have two good young hookers and the chances are they'll be fighting it out all season for their place in the squad. Giving them both a 4 year contract last season doesn't suggest a lack of faith in either of them. As I said, I'm sure McShane will be back in next week at the expense of Hood.

Is it just me or is it not something that we should be pleased about that we have soooooo many options at 6,7 and 9, the most pivotal positions on the pitch?

FWIW, to nobody's surprise, I think Burrow should be at 7 (McGuire at 6 and SInfield 13) and that would leave room for Hood and McShane in the 17, if necessary.

I agree plus IF we only have 1 of either Hood or Mcshane in the 17 we still have Burrow who could revert to the 9 role should we get an injury or want to try a different approach.
We still have plenty of options and versatillity with 6,7,9 and 13 in all their original positions.

Maybe it's Jimmy Lowes - not a bad hooker in his time IIRC - who sees flaws in McShane's game.
Re Hood, IMV they selected him at the expense of McShane for the Cas game to give him exposure at SL level against opposition the coaches viewed as appropriate for him
Unfortunately, Cas didn't play ball, so they couldn't risk putting him on till it was clear the game was won.
McDermott's comments after the game would seem to me to verify that view.
I agree with the view that McShane will be back this week vs the Wolves.

I clearly stated "[iwhen all are fit[/i and had included JJB in the mix. So in order to play both McShane and Hood plus Burrow at 7 would mean at the expense of Hauraki, Clarkson, Pitts and next season perhaps Ellis as well with never any room for a back on the bench.

IMO McShane has not yet done enough to offer the team more than the above named players set to lose out. I accept though that he has not had sufficient chance yet but this is what happens when you have good competition for places. Despite his poor game against Wigan Hauraki has improved with a consistent all round work rate, Clarkson though currently not on form has proven himself in the past, Pitts is improving and if we do sign Ellis it would not make sense to play 2 specialist hookers when we have Burrow able to interchange with either one of McShane/Hood.

If we have signed Ellis for next year then it is much more likely that Sinfield will stay at 6. For this reason and also as they say 'it it ain't broke why fix it?'

Nothing else thanks.

With regard to the avatar... too many people were becoming a pain in the neck!



And the giraffe well it is funny when chewing but I could not get the animation to work. I then kinda got used to it and with so many negative comments floating around the long neck helped me 'rise above it'

Do you think there needs to be room for a back on the bench?

The coach should always have this option (he used this succesfully last season) but with a couple of our back rowers able to play in the centres it is less likley to be used at present.

I'm not sure (in reality) that he has this option with only ten interchanges available per game in 2012.

A spare dedicated back would appear to be a bit of a luxury, liable to be underutilised and put pressure on the in-game forward rotation.

Hookers are just big half backs these days (Lowes for example) , not like a David Ward who was a prop who could pass. I like the idea of a back on the bench to make things happen, but these days you have Burrow (likem last year) and now Hood who fit that bill.

No doubt but that wasn't the point I was addressing where Juan appeared to be suggesting that in addition to the versatile hooker option (McShane or Hood or even Burrow in that guise) he felt the coach might like to have a 'back' option available. Indeed he went on to state the coach 'should always have this option.'

My feeling with only ten interchanges allowed there would be no room for such a luxury.

I agree TVOC and the versatillity of our BR's should make this a non starter aswell imo.

True but would have been handy at Wigan!

No you are mistaken. I was pointing out clearly that if both hookers are picked along with Burrow at 7, as nantwich and others were proposing, and assuming they pick 4 props then the coach would have only one bench place left to choose between Clarkson, Hauraki, Pitts or Smith or any other back. Therefore choosing both McShane and Hood + Burrow at 7 would limit the coaches options too much.

I was agreeing with you in a flowery type of way.

Smith as a stand-in hooker perhaps but not as a spare back. Selecting a back (any back) in that situation would limit the options still further.

Perhaps you could highlight those occassions when Leeds have used a back (any back) in this way on a bench that also comprised a half-back/hooker type and two props by design rather than out of a injury-ravaged neccesity.

I'd imagine they are very much in the minority.

Coaches do not want to limit their options and usually make their choices based on the best set of players they think should win them the game. If that set of players includes several outstanding backs with game changing skills who cannot all make the start or to if the coach wishes to give big match experience to a promising young back then of course a back can be selected on the bench. St Helens used Eastmond in this way.

Last season Watkins, McGuire, Smith and Burrow were all used on the bench and it was the impact of Burrow off the bench that was one of the most important reasons for our success last year. Because Burrow was able to sometimes allow Buderus to have a rest does not alter the fact that last year Burrow came on primarily as a back with Sinfield reverting to 13 and it was this tactic that proved so successfull. Perhaps it is only cup winning coaches that can appreciate this.

When people talk about a back, they tend to mean one of the threequarters. What TVOC is saying is that its unlikely that a coach would select a threequarter on the bench as well as a halfback/hooker, thereby leaving on 2 forwards. There will be odd occassions, but not enough to be significant

The point I made was that in choosing 2 hookers plus Burrow at 7, as some were advocating, means you have to omit one current backrower in any case assuming 4 props are picked. This was the main point I made as I believe that the backrower offers more to the side than 2 hookers plus Burrow.

But in addition to losing a current backrower there would be also be no option for a back or half back. In my book and for the purposes of this point a half back is a back not a forward. Therefore the issue was nothing to do with having a half back and a back on the bench which had not been suggested and why tvoc is off on a tangent.

Of course it all depends on the quality of the squad and the playing style. The policy of limiting the bench with 4 big forwards only to allow a rest period for other big forwards is a mistake. IMO we should only play 2 props on the bench if they have a good go forward game because if they only offer a good tackling stint then a back rower would be a better option. Players like Kirke and Clarkson do not offer enough impact to be on the bench IMO

The bench should primarily include players capable of changing the play/result in your favour and the chances are improved with one of these being a back (or half back) as most tries are scored by backs. So they offer better odds of having a positive impact on a result it seems odd not to include a back on the bench. Last year this was proven with Burrow coming off the bench primarily as a back and having a huge impact.

Apologies, but your post suggests to me that you have a very limited understanding of the game and how it works. You are right that the backs do score the majority of the points, but the reason they do this is because of the immense amount of work the forwards do. Having 3 or 4 forwards on the bench is designed to spread the workload of the players doing the most work. If you play with McGuire, Burrow, Sinfield, McShane & Hood, you are left with only 7 players who you describe as go forward players.

We have some total workhorses in our team, but that doesn't mean we should add more work on them, we should be trying to get more players to spread the load effectively so that our better players can improve their quality in each collision

agreed of the 5 players you mention there surely only a max of 4 can play in a 17 at one time, maybe even 3