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.

Burrow has been a consistent and proven match winner for Leeds over many years and is a one of the most dangerous attackers in the game. He is brave, fast and combines that with a classical tackling technique and is an 80 minute player. So the only reason you would replace him with a lesser player, that at best is a 50 per, is if he were injured or badly out of form.

Burrow has a unique style and since moving to hooker many posters seem to have trouble with this as he plays in a different way to the traditional hooker. Thank goodness the coaches were enlightened enough to have found a way to keep him on the field for the full 80. The coaches do not want him to defend down the middle they want him to stay fresh for attacking and pick a pack full of tacklers who allow this to happen. This has proven to be a successful formula and he has been a key player in our success with distribution good enough to win 2 Championships a WCC and get to a couple of cup finals.

As it turned out when McShane came on he in did not defend well at hooker.

I wondered which of the usual suspects would throw the first brick at Brian Mac. What are the weak coaching decisions that you speak of?

In the modern game traditional positions have overlapped and players have become more flexible. Why should Burrow defend down the middle? It is not necessary when we fill the pack with top tacklers. This has allowed Burrow the freedom to roam and win us so many key matches.

McShane was not reliable enough to defend down the middle as a hooker should do......was he? and his error was the most crucial as it let in soft 6 points and gave them momentum that quickly became 12 points. (Achurch was equally culpable

The other two critical mistakes from Burrow and Mags were most untypical but would have put us in front whereas the McShane mistake put us further behind so your conclusion is unfair.

It's not that coaches DON'T want Burrow to defend down the middle, it's because they know it would be bloody suicidal to do that. And I agree, McShane isn't a better player than Burrow but that doesn't mean he can't be brought on in place of him for 20 mins or so and offer something DIFFERENT, note the try Ablett scored in the GF set up by Lunt, that is something you're more likely to see from McShane than Burrow.

And also how I wrote in another post, sometimes having them on together will work, but sometimes it won't. JJB could've been easily swapped with Clarkson instead. As you said 'they pick a pack full of tacklers'.....yes they do but then sub off a tackler for an extra hooker. And no McShane didn't cover himself in glory in defence but as was mentioned, he is asked to defend a different position to Burrow.

As I've said before, I'm more than happy with Burrow starting at hooker. I just realise that it's a 17 man game, not 13, and that the subs, even if they aren't as good as the starters (hence them being on the bench in the first place) can offer something to the team.

I'm not throwing a brick....just making an observation that I felt should be commented on. He made mistakes this time. Are you suggesting the coach should be spared all criticism at all times because of past successes and glories?
The coach is responsible for the utilisation of his subs is he not? Do you think he used them wisely?

You make good arguments.....

These comments regarding Burrow are laughable and predictable.

The tactic of starting Burrow at 9 then moving him to the halves has been very successful. Problem was, we didn't use it last night because McShane was hooked by the coach who then didn't trust him enough to put him back on.

This meant that it was all on McGuires shoulders, Melbourne cleverly paying Kevin heavy attention