"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.

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

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.