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

"cleverly" ?.....would have thought that should have been basics?

Burrow is undoubtedly a potential match winner (pity he picked last night to knock on when 99 times out of a hundred he would have scored).....but his perhaps unique abilities are best utilised by him being complemented by a more conventional hooker. If McShane doesn't command enough faith in that role then the club needs to find another Lunt soon. Would Hood be the better option at least in the short term? Let's hope he is at least given the opportunity (perhaps he should have a holiday in Oz first including paying for his own fare back and then asking the club for a trial in an Aussie accent?)

For me personally mcshane isn't a good enough hooker for Leeds. Granted it only my opinion from the limited game time I have seen him play, but if the coach doesn't have faith in him to perform we should cut our losses and get shot. He is a waste of a spot if the coach doesn't trust him enough to put him back on.

Regarding the results there can be no complaints the best team won. Thought maguire was carrying an injury for most of the game. And the good targeting of sinfield by the storm cut our options. Personally I think burrow is best used alongside a good hooker who can actually be trusted to play some good game time. Don't think burrow is best used hooking for the full 80. Needs to interchange and can then move into the halves ie with buderus and Lunt. Not seen too much of hood, but think I would have a hooker at the top of my shopping list if I was mac.

And regarding England at the end of the season. I know it's only one game but Widdop looked very poor and for me not good enough to get the England 6 shirt

Thing is, for the last decade we've been very spoiled in the hooking roll, Diskin then Buderus.

Lunt did a reasonable job last year so expectations for the 9 shirt are pretty high and on last night's performance McShane isn't reaching the level we've come to expect.

Sinfield didn't look good enough either.

Didn't have a great game agreed my main point being doesn't look good for the end of the year

He would've looked pretty good if he was in Widdop's position of playing at 6 for Melbourne, whereas Widdop (who did play there) didn't.

Sinfield would look ridiculous in a Melbourne shirt. I cannot imagine Craig Bellamy coaching a team built around Sinfield when they have genuine world class players like Smith and Cronk who are able to control the team and dictate play to a much higher standard.