Disagree. McShane is a risk. He is just not consistent and is way behind Burrow in all aspects of the game. His poor tackling technique was a major reason for our loss IMO as it came at a crucial time and his reading of options is 50% at best. Yet you would have started him!

The big difference is when McShane comes on he defends at hooker whereas Burrow doesn't. If you could have McShane defend in the same position that Burrow does then he'll cope much better. The problem is of course that McDermott would have to bite the bullet and sub Burrow off when he brought McShane on.

That Melbourne were noted (by Phil Clarke admittedly) for starting the 2nd half of games well then perhaps McDermott could've planned it better to not have Achurch/McShane/Kirke all out there in the middle at that time.

I know hindsight is a wondeful thing but perhaps instead of bringing on Mcshane for JJB towards the end of the first half he'd have been better off making more like-for-like subsitutions such as.......Clarkson for JJB & McShane for Burrow.

I think Rhinoms needs to take personal feeling out of his evaluation of mcshane. I have no doubt that he's a top bloke, but his quality is not a top 8 side.

You proved my point really that Widnes wanted to keep him, yet Leeds refuse to start him and give him limited game time.

McShane may well not prove the answer,and there is questions about his defence, although that didn't look that bad at Cas. One thing for certain though, his distribution is far superior to Burrow from dummy half. Both players should not be on at same time.

I thught we really missed Hardaker actually. Ablett, as always was a very good replacement but, a couple of times in the second half he got one on one with his opposite number and didn't quite have the pace or footwork or get on the outside, where as Watkins I'm sure would have been able to put Vickery into pace a couple of times.

Does anyone else Vickery may nd up in the back row? To me, he's slow and his positional play at times is suspect, but he works hard and has good leg drve in contact, I think if h puts on some timer he could mae a decent back row.

I'd persevere with McShane. He's started the season well before last night, and he needs to be given more time. Achurch as I've said needs to get fiter and shed some timber.

Just had a look at the you know who forum.My god they dont change do they?some are ok,but that troll who is a moderater he's the worst

I agree with all you have posted regarding the match. Leeds were out coached; McDermott reverting to puzzling use/under use of substitutes.

All those criticising McShane for his undoubtedly poor tackling effort on Bromwich (aided and abetted by the so far strange recruitment of yet another apparent average Aussie at the expense of at least equally as good young English juniors !?!) should be equally criticising Burrow for his appaling knock on from Watkins' sublime first half break. Both were equally critical in an otherwise sterling effort.

The worrying aspects for the future (apart from the weak coaching decisions) were the way the ageing Peacock was still head and shoulders above any other Leeds forward and how rudderless/desperate/risky we are when Sinfield is successfully shut down.

You mean Wigan/Leeds Mandy? To be fair most of them are alright, they do have the likes of Buggo, Dougy, and RBandit who are a holy trinity of divs, but on the whole they're OK despite being slightly obsessed with Leeds.

"All" ?? Hardly fair when at least McShane defends in the middle as a hooker should do. Burrow does get the favourable treatment in that respect.

I like Burrow ...but he is an enigma. Not good enough to be a top class scrum half (Cooper Cronk showed us that), nor indeed a top class hooker (Buderus showed us that). His assets are his acceleration, speed, jinking and low height out of dummy half; he is a good text book tackler too....but that height assett amongst big forwards would be a liability anywhere else in the backs OR indeed forwards.
His non take of Watkins pass last night was a shocker ....on reflection a more critical moment than the pitiable tackling attempt of McShane's at the start of the second half

Agree.

I'm more than happy to have Burrow still starting at hooker, I think the way McShane is used needs to be thought through. Sometimes you can have them on together but I think sometimes you'll just have to have one at a time on. I don't think you necessarily need Burrow on for the full 80 for EVERY single game, a 20-25 mins spell on the bench wouldn't do him or the team any harm (might well prolong his career by a year).

Time Richard Moore and Chris Clarkson were given a fair crack in the second row ahead of Achurch and Kirke. Don't suppose it will happen though.

No it probably won't.....as Kirke & Achurch play front row, as would Moore if selected. As for Clarkson, he should get more minutes (as should any sub) but the other options we have in the back row (Delaney, Ward, JJB) all played very well last night.