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 [uall[/u 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?

(Clarke mentioned the strengths of Melbourne at the start of the second half...do you not think McDermott should also have been aware of this ...and had the [iright[/i 13 out at the [iright[/i time?)

Now stop your craven hero worship of the head coach and admit that even he is culpable in the loss this time: we [uALL[/u make mistakes.....even you in your obsession with defending the honour of your idol

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.

I too can't imagine that Bellamy would build a team around Sinfield, but he would've still played much much better than Widdop did. Probably wouldn't have fluffed the conversion to the Harris try like Smith did that put his team under extra unnecessary pressure by not gving them a full score advantage and could've cost his team had Leeds got over near the end

William Eve,if Leeds ever played to perefection you would still be a Troll

He wouldn't get a spot in the Melbourne team because he isn't good enough. No world class coach would select a player so overbearing and demanding of control when there are far better players like Smith and Cronk available to do just that.


It wasn't the first time that Sinfield displayed his inability to control and dictate games against Australian teams which lie outside his SL comfort zone and... unfortunately... it won't be the last.

One thing which struck me was how quiet the crowd were. Being a Nordstander this is not something I particularly care about but I thought the folks over on the other side prided themselves on getting behind the team? Trailing by only 4 points down for a chunk of the second half and yet it was virtually silent?

I'd really like to know how you can qualify this statement?

Disagree. Burrow has in the past defended down the middle and did it well and it was not suicide....remember he is a good tackler. However when he does this the opposition run at him to tire him out and to lessen his match winning abilities. I maintain the coaches have worked out a way to play Burrow at the breakdown for distribution and attack and out wide on defense thereby keeping a key man on the field for the full 80 so they do it for positive reasons and not negative ones.



I agree with you in principal and I am sure that could happen if McShane were to be relied upon to give that regular impact off the bench. As it is, the risk of not having Burrow on the field is too high because he is one of our main strike players. So when McShane comes on (and Lunt came on) it is usually for a back rower.



Agree with you re: Clarkson. I would have not brought on McShane in the first half but used him for the last 20 mins instead which releases Burrow to an even more roving role. I would have used Clarkson in the first half to spell one of the first choice back rows. Also in a situation where you are chasing the game in the last quarter I would prefer to see faster back rowers coming on and props going off with the notable exception of JP.



Again I agree with you in principal. However you do want your best players on the park for the maximum time possible particularly the ones with the best rugby skills. We have several of the first choices who have great stamina and only need a short break if indeed any, so equal use of the subs is not a given in my view and I do not subcribe to the belief that you always have to use them all... as the state of the game and the form and fitness of those of the field at a point in time can overide the original game plan.

I ask you again what are these weak coaching decisions you speak of? Why does it always have to be the coaches fault if we lose?

I would have used the bench differently but that is not to say it would have changed the result.

We played the best side from the NRL who were ready and up for it. On the night the players made some errors and we were second best. Their line speed in defence (with occassional generous offside judgements from the ref) was impressive and our PLB´s too slow (We missed Bailey in this respect and didn't struggle enough to get up quickly) They marked out key players better than we did theirs. We fluffed 12 points and gifted them 6 maybe 12 points. Yet despite all this, and not being at our sharpest, the difference at the whistle was just 2 penalties that we chose not to take. I can live with that

Well Bellamy certainly built much of his game plan and pre match practice in targeting Sinfield. He even had a player wear a shirt with Sinfield's name on who was the main target for hits. On the night Kevin was dumped on his backside without the ball quite a few times as proof of their respect.

Interesting that you put Mcshanes tackling technique as a "major reason" for our loss yet dont mention Burrow bombing a "sitter" or his at times slow and low distribution from dummy half and dont even mention Achurch's involvement in the missed tackle or Watkins getting thrown off like a rag doll.
Mcshane has better passing from DH imo and could prove to be as good a 9 as Lunt given the chance his lack of consistemncy is as much about his lack of gametime as anything else and even in a sh## Widnes team he showed he can comfortably perform at SL level and influence games nowt wrong with being good for a lower team is there afterall you have a penchant for Cross.
I'm not in any way saying he is a better RL player than Burrow nor that he's gonna be the next Buderus but Burrow was having a poor game disttribution wise and also imo was poor at Cas and outplayed by Mcshane v Salford that's where i say starting spots should be earned.
As for reading the options when we were at cas Burrow consistently ran "blind" passed to players not even expecting the ball and imo had a mare Mcshane came on and got us going forward ripped cas at PTB and again passed much better.
Burrow is quality i'm not saying otherwise just that on form i think Mcshane should have had more gametime at 9.
Now again i dont need a run down on Burrows merits or his outstanding achievements i'm talking current form here and now nor do i think Burrow should be ditched but he's not been that good at 9 thus far an BOTH his AND Mcshanes errors on friday played a pivotel role in costing us the game.
G1-RE-The Burrow comments. Has he been top notch in your opinion and should his undoubted quality and past achievements make him exempt any kind of criticism when not at his best??

I wouldn't bother entertaining his comments, they are ridiculous.

To criticise Mcshane on Friday and making an attempt to excuse Burrow is bewildering.

It wasn't just the bombed try, lot's of players that happens with every week. The problem was that wasn't his only handling error. His distribution from dummy half was shocking, his continuous attempts to run for himself rather than his team mates yet the Melbourne defence had him in their pocket.

Burrow has been poor in 3 out of 4 games so far this season, 2 of those games worse than any other performances he has put in, in his leeds career. To ignore that is just naive, he is not excusable from criticism.

Leeds vs Melbourne = Man of the Match
2008 - Kevin Sinfield
2010 - Cameron Smith
2013 - Cooper Cronk

Oh

Agreed Burrow is a good tackler but when has he been tasked with defending down the middle?



Leeds - like most teams - defend with their starting half-backs out wide, one on either side inbetween centre and wing. Leeds - like no other team I've ever seen (including Leeds prior to 2012) also defend their regular starting hooker out wide. It's a positive to have your game-breakers on the field as much as possible but it can also be a negative if it places additional defensive duties on tired over-worked forwards.