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.

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.