2 hookers in the 17 aren't needed anymore. The hooker is the player with his hands on the ball the most and taking him off the field totally disrupts the structure of the team, you wouldn't take your half back off the field twice in a game and I think the same should apply to the hooker, especially when he's playing as well as Aiton.

u

I disagree, whilst a hooker can play 80 minutes, is it the wisest idea to do so? Roby usually does and looked knackered at times tonight. If we had played Aiton for 80 mins every week so far....would he have put in that performance tonight or would he started to look a bit tired?

You're correct that you wouldn't normally take your halfback off, but usually your halfback makes mid-teens in terms of tackles, your hooker would do 40 pushing 50 if he stayed on the full 80.

If anybody had the slightest doubt/concern over sutty being sinnys replacement next year, he's shot that right out the water tonight, quick thinking and with it the correct decisions. I'd go as far as saying that's probably his best performance in a rhinos shirt, especially considering the opposition.

You could do what Melbourne do with Cam Smith and move him out of the way in defense for spells in the game to reduce his workload in defense. I understand the point about spelling your hooker to keep him fresh but when that substitute hooker is the smallest player in the competition it makes you weaker defensively straight away, and it makes Leeds a softer proposition.

True in terms of who we are currently bringing on in Burrow (To be fair after 30 mins the game looked like the perfect scenario for him to come into to). I would at some point like to see Robbie Ward on the bench coming on for spells so that we have a two hooker system without effecting the defensive set-up.

If we are after another hooker surely Lunt is a no brainer?

Lunt has had his day at Leeds - maybe a move to Leeds might revitalise Clark?

why are you been so @rsey over it Fallon. All he did was post what has been told. Is he not allowed to do that?

Last night was a typical example of if that rumour was true it would work perfectly.

I don't see why you have such an issue, and I see no bad comments from tad here.

That would be awesome but how realistic?

Signing another Hooker, I feel, would be counter productive. We'd be in the same situation as when we had Diskin and Buderus. Both those Hooker's style required long game time, neither suited to shorter high impact spells. Taking into account Aiton's superb form and obvious negative impact when withdrawn from the action, I'd go with Sinfield at 9 for the closing 10 minutes of the first off and opening 10 of the 2nd. Sinfield still could do a decent job there.

We are now faced with a bit of a problem. More out of sentimentality and respect. I don't feel as though Burrow or Sinfield warrant a starting position within the team, but dropping either completely would be huge. Sinfield still has a role to play, but Burrow? I'm unsure, not whilst our current 6, 7 & 9 are fit.

My problem is - why can't you quote properly?!

I think that is all valid points, and worth a go. However, don't forget Sinfield definitely isn't here next season.

About Houghton or the poster?

Not happy about the Houghton rumour cos I hope its untrue. It doesn't fit with Hetheringtons MO. Ward will likely be given his chance if things are to change. It just doesn't sit well.

Arsey with poster because don't appreciate being called playground names when his source is less than robust. The point of a forumn is to post and comment. We can all sit in silence if you prefer.