If we consider Burrow to be a back are we now saying that the two hooker policy used by Saints ( Cunningham and Roby ) and indeed Leeds ( Buderus and Diskin ) was foolish ?

Actually in the latter case it was.... But that is a different story. Without a doubt I believe the McShane and Hood duo would work far better. They complement each other to a greater degree.

You said Leeds playing a starting scrum-half and hooker with a hooker/halfback on the bench would limit the coaches options. Yet that formula has pretty much been the norm for several seasons. You suggested he might wish to have the option of a spare back on the bench in addition to the above. I asked for examples, you waffled.

In 2011 it happened on 3 out of 36 occasions but I would suggest when it did it was not for the game-breaking potential you imply. Twice it occurred with McShane/McGuire to accomodate a player being eased back after injury coincidentally against generally perceived to be weaker opposition (Crusaders at Headingley - both in League and Cup) the other example being Burrow/Smith in the disaster pre Wembley outing at the Stoop where Leeds had run out of forwards they were prepared to risk.

So that appears to be a grand total of 3 out of 36 in 2011 with plausable explanations other than designing game-breaking potential, unless you know different?

As previously argued, very clearly a minority situation (even without the explanation) so the position you present that the Leeds coach wishes to have the option of a spare back appears to be one without justification.

Well I have been a student of the game for more than 50 years and have seen trends come and go including a time when we did not have substitutes at all. I am fully aware of the workload that forwards undertake and how the game has worked at different times. When you consider that 4 of the forwards who produce our greatest workload take or need the least rests - JJB, JP, Delaney and Ablett which is contrary to your point. I could suggests that perhaps the depth of your understanding of the game is limited to current trends without no thought of innovation.

You still miss the point. I am not advocating playing McShane, Hood and Burrow at the same time so why persist. I am happy with playing Burrow and one hooker on the bench. It is precisely the point I made that playing two hookers and Burrow reduces a workhorse from being on the bench.

The tactic of rotating 4 forwards from the bench has been with us for some time but it has not resulted in any noticable improved quality but rather a drop in entertainment value as it encourages more collision from fresher forwards and less chance of making the ball work to find the gaps.

Cunningham and Roby worked well as they both had impact in different ways. Buderus and Diskin did not work well IMO as both were momentum players rather than impact.

The coach prefers Sinfield at 6 and so to get Burrow on the field for the maximum time means him starting at hooker which he is capable of doing and is being used in the much the same way as Thomas Leuluai.

I prefer our current successful strategy of Burrow stating at 9 + one of McShane/Hood with Sinfield starting at 6. To start Burrow at 7 means Sinfield starting at to 13. If we revert to this combination I do not yet see McShane offering more than one of Hauraki/Pitts/Clarkson/A.Back. If Ellis plays for us next year then my point is even more valid. However if we consider playing just one prop on the bench then there would be more flexibility.

Is this the Thomas Leuluai who's one of the most damaging defenders in the league and makes over 20 tackles a match, many of them around the ruck?

Not saying that Burrow is being used incorrectly, but he's used completely differently to Thomas Leuluai. Leuluai is a hooker who sometimes switches to half but still defends hooker. Burrow is the complete opposite.

The problem isn't having 2 hookers its having 2 hookers, 2 halves, a half playing at 13, and effectively another at fullback. Too many chiefs and not enough native americans?

:2rhzmgoj

What are you talking about? I did not make a general point regarding positions. I said quite clearly that starting:2rhzmgoj Burrow :2rhzmgojat 7 with :2rhzmgojMcShane and Hood:2rhzmgoj would limit the coaches options because with :2rhzmgojSinfield:2rhzmgoj at 13 you would have to drop a current backrower and if:2rhzmgoj Ellis :2rhzmgojreturns to Leeds next year you would have to drop 2 current backrowers. We were talking about the combination of these :2rhzmgojspecific

That is fair enough, but how the game was played even 10 years ago, is pretty irrelevant to how it is played now. Unless you think hookers still need to hook the ball in the scrum.



You don't really make sense there. I think you are saying that our top forwards don't need much rest. If so, that is true, but I would have thought that were you to play them many more minutes than we already do then they will either provide little quality for those extra minutes; get fatigued earlier in the season and be less fit for the business end; or pick up injuries due to taking on too much.



This wasn't clear from your previous posts


I guess it depends on what you determine to be entertainment. Some people like collission, some like skill. I like a bit of both

Yes they are different in style. I meant that Leuluai is a scrum half playing at hooker buy has certainly stepped up his defensive abilities.

No it is not irrelevant. The game is evolving but is basically the same and sometimes things go around. Because 4 forwards pack the bench now does not mean this will always be so. Already they have reduced the interchanges perhaps to allow more fatugue and so open up the game.




I am making the point that the players who play the least time with longer rests are not our best forwards and are the least productive. So you cannot argue that more resting produces better quality. But I am not suggesting playing our best forwards for even longer although I think this would happen if our 2 hookers were played plus Burrow at 7 because we would have one less back rower on the bench. That is why I am against this proposal.

So it does not follow that keeping 4 forwards on the bench is therefore the best tactic. IMO 2 props on the bench may now be a luxuary. It is horses for courses and as I said it depends on the talent in the squad. For example if Leeds now had available another McGuire, Burrow, Watkins etc do you not think we would have an advantage in playing one of them on the bench? On other ocassions it makes sense to play 4 big forwards but not as a given IMO.

However we must also consider that our 2 centres are making more than 20 tackles each per game which is more than some forwards achieve so it is not just the forwards who have to be looked after as we need their sharpness to score the tries!



I don't see why. I made it clear about 6 times

eg 1 "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.

eg2 Reply to you
"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."



I too like a bit of both, but as a former back myself I prefer to see more skill than brawn.

After his efforts for th U20s last week I'd hope for McShane's case that he'd be back in the full squad this week.
Viewing the U20 game vs Cas I was struck by the apparent physical similarities between Steve Ward & Sinfield, does anybody know if that's true?

I dunno how Rob himself feels about playing hooker, or whether it's strictly speaking his best position, but I was struck, particularly in the Manly game, by how much he's starting to look like one. His distribution from DH is really looking the part at times and seems to get better all the time (suggesting he's working quite hard on it, which is certainly consistent with his usual approach to his career), and he has always liked to get in at DH and scoot, even when he plays scrum half.

Also, does anybody have any idea of how often it is actually him who goes to DH, because I have the impression that work gets shared around a bit, with Sinfield and Webb both being happy enough to go in and do the job. Are we really seeing a more flexible approach to the job?

It's quite straightforward. I was replying to this:



The red parts I follow, the blue part I queried and asked for clarification of when this option had been selected. You provided nothing specific so I did to show how infrequently these anomolies occurr and offered explanations as to possibly why when they do.

All your rowing back since doesn't alter the above post but if we are agreed there isn't room on the banch or flexibility over the number of possible interchanges to include 'a Smith or any other back' I'm happy to leave it there.



Brian McDermott isn't Steve Hilton. He didn't invent that use for Burrow he returned to it. Despite Burrow saying 'I always start' to Sam Tomkins, that wasn't always the case. Eighty seven times he's started on the bench (seventy four of those before McDermott took over as head coach) and rarely did he replace the starting scrum-half under Powell and early Smith either. He came on initially to zip around at dummy half to give the sole hooker a break and then mixed and matched jumping in and out as required when Mears/Diskin/Dunemann returned.

I credit coach McDermott with reintroducing the policy and revitalising Burrow's form but not with inventing it or thinking outside the box.



I've explained what I was replying to.

McShane dropped from 19 vs Warrington after starring for U20s last week. Confusing that he was given a long contract only to be slapped around like this. Either he's rated or he isn't.

It's hard to understand, I put on the other thread about how is he training, does he show poor attitude,poor work rate etc. Other than that it's maybe BM don't like the look of him or Lowes for that matter, makes the long contract even harder to work out.

Did anyone else notice how pi55ed of macca looked when he was subbed in the second half at widnes. Has something been said, resulting in a few weeks in U20's

My thoughts are the same. A good half back should be able to take on the distribution aspects of the hooking role with the other creative players to help out. It is not so necessary for Burrow to put in a high tackle count with the sort of good defenders he has around him and he has the technique and courage to make the tackles as and when required. Rob has made a good job so far and looks confortable with the freedom this dual role gives him.

Pathetic post !! McShane is a great player & certainly deserves more game time & he does not deserve someone like you (probably never played the game ?) to post such a poor reply.

Still - you have the right to your opinion

Spot on post !! Burrows at 7, Danny at 6 & Sinfield at 13 did seem to work when the Rhinos won most of the trophies. The Coach might know something that others do not - but to most people, it seems to be the fact that the Whinos squad is so strong that the coach can do what he wants ? Wait until the Whinos lose a few ??

You are Paul McShane and I claim my fifty quid.

I wonder how much of an influence Bedsy was before he left back home, who he thought would make it

Looking at the forwards we have it seems that BM is genuinely trying to rotate players. He seems to be actually doing that amongst the other forwards as well.

Hood needs some game time in order to be able to do that with McShane. If anything BM has shown faith in McShane picking him for the WCC. Its possible he's just saying that he also has faith in Hood by picking him for a big game against the Wire.

Or it could even be simpler - a case of BM making two good young propsepcts compete for a single spot. Neither is a bad reason for BM to pick Hood over McShane at this stage of the season.

FWIW it would appear that Sinfield/McGuire is the preferred halfback option, with Burrow at 9. Unless our form drops considerably or one of them gets injured it doesn't appear as if BM is going to change that.

Ahem !

...is there where I say I told you so

.

McShane's face doesn't fit (say no more). It does seem a cruel twist to give the lad the no.9 shirt [uand[/u a four year contract.....only to then keep him firmly on the sidelines.

I got that part wrong, not in isolation I'd say, plus I only stated it as a view NOT a fact.
I am surprised though since if McD didn't have faith in Hood against Cas, it's hard to imagine that this week's game will offer greater opportunities to blood Hood.
We'll know by about 21.50 on Friday.