Burrow off > Falloon on.

That's how simple it is.

Agree. Burrow was causing Hull real problems, would have been a mistake to take him out of dummy half. I do remember Diskin used to be able to come in and just play as a forward. Falloon could have come in and replaced Achurch.

My missus could have come on and had a bigger impact than Achurch ! No desire , no bottle , no hope . How this bloke can pick up his wages with a straight face beggers belief .

Agree. Would have been silly to disrupt Burrow, Sutcliffe and Lilley when it seemed like they were doing ok.

I also thought maybe he could've come on in the back row but Falloon is quite small and it depends if it's something he's used to doing.

He played the full 80 though didn't he? Delaney played his usual full 8.

He was on the pitch for the full 80 granted , Delaney probably contributed more in his 8 minutes though . Injury and a broken body is one thing , lack of desire and bottle is another .

As much as I think Achurch is a waste of space I can't agree with that. Delaney, even when on, died with the ball every carry (as usual at the moment) and was on the pitch for such a short time that it must now be clear he's far too big a gamble on the bench - especially if you are only going to use 3 subs anyway.
Delaney has done some great things in a Leeds shirt, but all good things come to an end.

But this would have been a mistake. Falloon was best staying on the bench last night.

Oh I agree. Burrow played well.

But that's how simple a sub it is. There's no need to reshuffle the team.

Agree that this time the coach got it right. Burrow had his best game and so did Lilley.
Difficult decision next week if McGuire is back.
Probably means Falloon does not make the 17.
Keinhorst as back up centre is a real plus for me and on form is a better option than Watkins.

No problem Falloon not coming on at hooker last night, Burrow was effective. After we went 20-12 up we I'd have brought him on as a fresh man on to replace one of our back rows just to shore up the defence, but not sure if we'd run out of subs by then.

I'm sorry but not using all your 17 players out of choice, in a 17 man game is just plain barmy amd inexcusable. In last night's game there was no requirement to sub Burrow, but the interchanges would allow Faloon to give another forward a break if only filling in at LF for a short period. How many games have been lost with forwards too shagged to make a critical tackle (recently Cuthbertson on Mulhern)? It's especially foolhardy when selecting Delaney who is permanently on one leg and managed 8 minutes last night. Don't let the (just) win cloud your collective judgement.

Imo it was a lucky call rather than a clever one there was no reason BF couldnt have done a stint for Delaney or Achurch in the latters case he could have been replaced by opera man & no-one would notice.

Its pretty simple really, put 4 forwards on the bench, put Burrow on the same side as Sutcliffe and Keinhorst in defence.
Sutcliffe can defend as a centre and Keinhorst can defend as a second rower.

I have never understood BMD's thinking on the use of subs, and gave up getting upset about it it a couple of seasons ago. I then found concentrating on what was going on in the match was a much more satisfying experience, and fair play to the team last night for putting in a decent shift, and gaining the points.

Summer rugby. It's the future.....