But Cleary plays 7 rather than 9, so stands where I would expect a 7 to stand.

I agree with your second paragraph, the point that maybe I am not making clearly, is that I don't believe we can find that balance with this current group of players. Or when asking Burrow to do a whole game at 9. That is not to say it's impossible, in fact we have managed to hit that balance on the head with Burrow working alongside the likes of Diskin, Buderus, Lunt etc.

Again your last paragraph I mostly agree with, except for the bit about the hooker and the half, I do think you can get away with someone doing less tackling at hooker, but IMO it would be covered by the 13 or real workaholic forwards (JP, Gallen). I don't think we have that player in the ranks who fits the bill.

Brett Delaney fits the bill, the bloke would run his blood to water, if his body would allow him. Unfortunately I don't think his legs have got it in them anymore

Like it or not Burrow is contracted for next year and will be back up 9 probably for Segeyaro by looks. In a salary cap era can a team carry 3 top hookers? Do any other SL teams have 3 big name 9s? Maybe 2 and a kid but Hallas is being offered as a loanee next year so if that goes thru he wont be around.

I honestly think a fit Stevie Ward will tighten the middle defence up a hell of a lot next year fingers crossed the lad can stay fit along with Segeyaro.

Burrow is perfectly fine as an impact 9 hes done it successfully for plenty of years for us and despite the criticism on here he has never let Leeds down.

Rightly or wrongly can anyone see us signing another 9 if Segeyaro stays???

But you would sound a little stupid saying you dont want a creative player defending on the outside. Most teams hide creative players there.

Once again, and im not sure how you are still struggling with it, whether Burrow plays in the halves, or at 9, it makes no difference.

But its not necessary for a haf to need to be protected defensively. There are many 7's who can defend well.
Where you cover it from doesnt really matter. As i said earlier, i think regardless of hooker, we dont have the halves sorted.

Marty - what we need is someone else who can cover hooker. Properly. Whether that's Hallas or someone else doesn't bother me, but we need cover there. If Segeyaro gets injured I for one wouldn't put much faith in a team with Burrow playing long minutes as starting hooker. He's also beyond ordinary as a halfback. His value is off the bench against tired teams. If he no longer has the zip to create mayhem in that role then he shouldn't be in the 17, never mind long minutes.

Smokey - how can you argue that Burrow at 7 or 9 makes no difference? If he's at 7 he's virtually the same as any other weak defensive halfback, which most teams have and allow for. When he plays 9 without Sinfield we generally already have two small weak defenders on. That means one extra player to cover for. It can be done, but without someone as solid as Sinfield who is able to help the team maintain shape I just don't think it can work for any length of time.

Yes but they don't hide THREE creative players there do they.



That's nonsense, of course there's a difference. In his game alone he goes from jumping into dummy half maybe 5/10% of the game with the rest of the time at first/second receiver..... to being at DH 80% of the game......that's a major difference especially when his distribution isn't as crisp as the likes of other hookers. It also make a huge difference to teammates as most of them have to alter their game in defence.

No difference? Oh why because he's still goes on a mazy run? Nonsense. Burrow playing 7 or 9 and no difference is the biggest BS line trotted out by people who support him playing at hooker.

3.96826171875:5