Under different coaches Burrow has played at 9 and I remember he did defend down the middle quite well but as I said the opposition forwards targeted him to slow him up.

You have overlooked one important point. Leeds - have achieved remarkable success with the policy of playing our regular starting hooker out wide like no other team. I do not agree with your inference that this means we have tired overworked forwards. You overlook the fact that in keeping Burrow fresh to attack it allows him to make some of the metres that the forwards would otherwise have had make let alone putting on match winning plays and most importantly it keeps him on the field for the full 80. This tactic has been proven to work very very well.

How good was JP? Awesome.

Anyone worked out the value in playing Clarkson for just the final 10 minutes. He has been on a good run, return to form etc. I'd have used him more. Especially seeing as our forwards on the whole looked a little 'leggy'.

I have mentioned Achurch and both the Burrow sitter and also the Mag one which you did not. After these misses the scores were still equal at half time. In the context of the game Mcshane's miss (and then Achurch) put us 6 points down and IMO gave them the all important momentum to gain another back to back try. Hence I maintain the McShane missed tackle was the most crucial as having got back into the game it became a turning point.

Pattern forming quickly this season - Kirke and Achurch can't be trusted to build on the good work the 2 starting props have started.

Remarkable success? WTF

We have played one season this way, and won the one trophy. Only by changing the way we started the season playing by bringing on a proper hooker and playing him for more minutes than he was previously doing did we achieve that success.

Which barrell do you scrape these arguments from?

Which coaches before Brian McDermott have played Burrow as a starting hooker at Leeds ?

In what circumstances did they select him there - was it as an emergency fill in or 1st choice?

How successful was the move, did he cement the position ?

I have to say I'm unconvinced, without you can provide examples to back your claim, that he was ever tasked with defending around the ruck which IMO represents 50% of a hooker's duty and is a specialist role within the pack and not one easily delegated without causing disruption.



Not remarkable by this group's high standards.

I'd have said another fifth placed finish is more disappointingly ordinary than remarkable although thanks to the inadequecies of the current play-off format I can see why they'd rather finish there than third or fourth. 2012 pretty accurately mirrored 2011 and I don't recall Burrow starting any games at hooker in 2011. Continued success is a testament to the team.



There are two aspects to the game. Your Burrow comments tend to overwhelmingly focus on only one of these - while you appear quick to point out McShane's defensive weakness.

On Leeds' first defensive set on Friday Burrow was outside Sinfield on the right with McGuire outside Moon on the left. On the second set McGuire had joined Sinfield and Burrow on the right leaving Leeds' left edge completely exposed with Ward, who was defending that set outside Moon, isolated as the last man with Hall dropping deep. Thankfully for Leeds Melbourne completely missed this opportunity but the defensive alignment was a shambles.

Confusion on only the second defensive set of the match. Melbourne may have missed that early opportunity but it was noted as on the next set they run a pet play down that channel which the disorganised Leeds defence couldn't handle.

It didn't end there either despite the 1st set alignment being re-established for the next few sets it happened again in the 11th minute only this time Burrow switched sides to double up with McGuire leaving this time Sinfield exposed on the right edge basically guarding a third the width of the pitch.

Who is responsible for these alarming defensive alignment flaws ? Is it helping Leeds trying to effectively accomodate three starting half-backs - possibly four when you note Ward's position outside Moon on only the second defensive set. Is it asking too much of the remaining forwards ?

Can't have it both ways Gotcha; if he was continuously running for himself he couldn't have been passing from dummy at all. But yes, I'd agree that his distribution isn't the most potent weapon in his armoury. I'd be more hesitant in criticising his attempts at making the break. As you say, the Storm defence had the measure of him although I think if they'd switched off he'd have exploited it. But they didn't.

Achurch maybe, but Kirke? no. Kirke came on at about 15mins, or slightly before, and played about 35 mins. The platform and stability in the game coincided with him being on the pitch. When on he took the ball up well, making what seemed like decent yardage with each carry. Kylie did put some shots in early doors, but seemed to be stopped too easily with the ball.

Aside from Peacock, none of the props were brilliant on Friday, but Kirke was definitely the best of the rest

Agreed.

I'd say Burrows miss prior to H/T was just as crucial and imo would have sent us in on front foot and able to absorb the horror start to the 2nd half better and maybe even more importantly save us from playing "catch up" RL for the last 20!
I'm proud of the teams efforts and in no way should my comments detract from a huge effort on the night by the lads but my opinion remains the same when assesing individual performances in detail.

Burrow is a great tackler (and I have a ton of respect for how well he does in defence), where he defends. He wouldn't cope however with defending in the middle though and this is why they don't put him there. If it was about energy levels and keeping him fresh then why not give him 15 mins on the bench at the start of the 2nd half? Those tired forwards of the opposition have just had a nice half time breather and we aren't as noted for starting halves as well as other teams. Even in the successful 4 Playoff games of 2012 we conceded the first try in 7 of the 8 halves of rugby we played, also all 4 halves of the CC/WCC Finals, especially early in the 2nd half.....

Wakefield - 42 mins
Catalans - 48 mins
Wigan - 42 mins
Warrington GF - 44 mins
Melbourne - 44 mins
Warrington CC - 48 mins

Anyone else spotting a pattern here that needs working on????



I think the biggest risk is highlighted above in my previous answer. Does having a back rower coming off after 30 mins for an extra hooker really work? Burrow is one of our main strike players, but after half-time it's usually the opposition that is striking.



Why the last 20 mins to bring McShane on though? That leaves him sat on the bench a long long time since the original warm-up. Why not give Burrow 15-20 mins on the bench to recharge his own batteries and also talk over plans with McDermott/Lowes for when he comes back on, if keeping him defending wide is saving his energy imagine how fresh he'll be for the final 20-25 mins (hopeful) onslaught with a slight breather.



You want your best players out there at the right time and an appropriate amount of time and not sacrifice structure for it (losing a back rower in defence). I do subscribe to the belief that you should use all your subs, it's no coincidence that we won the playoffs with much better interchange rotation and also the CC Semi. Whilst twice we lost when leaving 1 sub unused against Wigan (away) and Saints at home. Not only did we not use Lunt against Saints but we also waited until the 50 mins mark to bring on Griffin too (he and Clarkson barely getting 15 mins each game time) and from leading 18-12 in the 48min we lost it 18-31.

Are we finally grasping why McShane isn't a SL standard starting hooker?

The kid's got some positiives to his game, but he cannot be trusted to defend centrally and Leeds can't hide him anywhere like they do with Burrow and McGuire.

Is that judged purely from the Storm game or from other examples?

I haven't watched the game back, but that one tackle aside I don't remember his defense being that bad.

This was something I picked up on and commented upon early last season. It was either Hall or BJB that were copping some flak on here for perceived defensive frailties. I observed and pointed out that the person defending inside the winger would change from set to set causing a great deal of confusion throughout the team.

To say he is not SL is a bit harsh but his defense can be a worry sometimes, but we have been spoilt by Buderus (who had the best tackle technique I've ever seen in SL) and Diskin who was/is very solid in defense.

We won 2 trophies not one! and got to the the final of the only other competition. In all of this Burrow was a key player at 9. Is that not remarkable success? and is not even more remarkable to do it for a 2nd year running?

Lunt more often than not came on for a back rower and then shared distribution and allowed Burrow more freedom.

The previous year the policy of bring Burrow on at was crucial in us winning the Championship from a historic 5th place. Was that not remarkable too?

We know you don't like Burrow and you obviously like it even less when he keeps proving your judgement to be wrong.

And back in the real world, we won the previous year because we finally realised that you need to start with quality hookers and leave them on for as long as possible, using wee Robbie as an impact sub. That was why we achieved that success. Not because of starting Burrow at hooker

I guess that's alright then, it's not like they are well rewarded full-time professional players (and coaches) aiming to win a record breaking 4th World Club Challenge in front of a sold out stadium and a live TV audience or anything.



Didn't we have this conversation last year and wasn't your position then that defensive patterns stay pretty much intact even after contact with the opposition? You now appear to be producing caveats when addressing two examples in what would be the opening five (?) defensive sets of an actual game. Players relatively fresh and alert, knowing their roles without the complication of substitues being introduced. Perhaps the pretty much intact comment warranted testing a little further.

On the first mis-alignment it followed a McGuire kick from the right. He didn't have much time to shift back left and stayed right throughout that next defensive set. On the fourth Moon was signalling for re-inforcements on the left (and McGuire waved back) the problem there for mine were the central defenders not realising McGuire had swtched flanks and making an adjustment to compensate. Is the structure too rigid that it can't adjust, is the talk not good enough man to man, was the full-back communicating with his defensive line?

The second case on eleven minutes was a little different though. The starting hooker was supporting a break down the centre when McGuire's offload to Jones-Buchanan was ruled forward. As it was on the last a turnover was ruled. The hooker for some reason decided to go left flank instead of right even though that represented a longer journey. Again as before there was confusion and no adjustment from the central defenders to compensate, this time leaving Sinfield exposed.

And in Gotcha world you've been claiming this team was finished for several years so why should anyone take your opinions on why you think we've been successful seriously?

Did I say it's alright?





I've lost complete track of what point you're trying to make here. Is it that our selection is wrong, our players are poor at aligning, our coach picks the wrong tactics, or something else? Or were you just saving me run through the footage again

The question is whether Leeds' defensive alignment is being compromised on occasions by using a converted half-back who cannot defend the ruck. While in theory it's possible to do so by shifting additional defensive responsibilities on to the loose-forward does it work well in practice?

Prior to Burrow being used as a starting hooker I don't recall noting he and McGuire stood side by side in the defensive line too often - presenting opponents with a rather obvious target to attack - whereas over the course of this season and last it's becoming a fairly common sight.

While both can and generally do defend well out wide (one on either flank) you wouldn't want them together having a big forward heading their way, especially when close to the line. It's also been the case where players on the opposite flank when this has happened over the last two games (Moon V Melbourne and Ablett V St Helens) have been left waving for re-inforcements as the defensive line has become unbalanced and failed to adjust.

But of course our esteemed coach has noticed this and cannot be criticised for his selection policy: the 17 chosen are obviously the best at training the house down

Or they've performed decent-to-good in training whilst Chisholm and Singleton might have disappointed.