the big problem with burrow at hooker is his passing from the floor is slow and sometimes sloppy. with aiton its crisp and gets wider quicker.

Perhaps he wouldn't but you can't say for certain unless it's against the rules to award a man of the match to someone who starts on the bench - remind everyone where the player who won the Harry Sunderland in 2011 started that game.

You can get away with Burrow at hooker against Wakie. In last fortnight he was afforded plenty of time, due to the benefit of a pack being easily on the front foot and he still didn't make most of the space overall and it isn't pretty to watch. Yes he can dart and run across the line, but he's lacking from a hooking distribution skillset. That's not his fault, he is a scrum half afterall. Think he would be alot happier back at seven too.

Aiton has played well and is an asset to the club and yes his floor pass is better and he makes more tackles. However in all other aspects of the game Burrow is superior. Burrow makes far more dummy runs, carries, metres, tackle busts and clean breaks. Burrow is a proven try scorer and match winner with a kicking game. Burrow does not fit in with some peoples idea of the archetype hooker but his unque individual skills as one of the best attackers in SL make him able to make a success in this role.

In truth Burrow is not that bad at acting half back (2nd choice for England) and as first choice hooker for the leading metre making side last year last year and the current metre leader so far this year his alleged lack of a floor pass has not prevented him from getting good metres out of our forwards and also giving them an all important rest (and the opposition forwards a nightmare) with his many runs from dummy half. This last point is totally overlooked by his detractors.

I have said many time that I would prefer Burrow at 7 but since Buderus left he has stepped up to be our first choice 9 and rarely lets the team down. Some say he should be on the bench but IMO that would be a tragic waste of attacking talent. Maybe in the future but not now because of all our key core players over the last 10 years Burrow is the one that has not lost his speed or had his ability diminished. IMO if fit he should remain on the field for the full 80 as usually he is as full of running in the last minute as in the first.

When Aiton is fit again I would prefer Burrow at 7 as we need his speed in the halfbacks. To give Aiton a break Burrow or Sinfield can cover the 9 spot for 10/15 minutes. So I would not go with a replacement hooker on the bench.

fair points JC. i prefer him at 7 too but he makes a good fist of playing hooker

Irrelevant comment.

My point was he was MOM or close to it in the last 2 games playing the full 80 minutes which few so called hookers can do. In the previous game against Saints he was Leeds's best attacker and at 9 had distributed our forwards to dominate metres and field position again playing the full 80 - remind everyone who was our first choice hooker in 2011 and why he started. We are now talking about 2014 with Aiton out for 3 months.

Our most consistent, fastest attacker should be on the field for the full 80 unless rested or injured

Not Burrow's fault Wakefield were poor. He did enough against Saints (SL leaders with a superb defence) in the distribution skillset to put Leeds in the right field position to win the game. Look at the metres Leeds made last year and this season. That wouldn't be if Burrow was as bad at 9 as you suggest. He more than makes up for the odd poor floor pass by the other skillsets that I have outlined above.

It's not a fair point in any context to measure an hooker on number of carries or dummy half runs he makes. Quite frankly it is a weak point to make, as JC has been told numerous times before.

Hookers are constantly taking the ball from dummy half, as it is their job, so number of carries is determined by how many play the balls the team has. As for dummy half runs, again a complete irrelevant stat unless it is determined by meters gained. You could have your hooker making 40 10 metre runs in a game, making 400 metres in total, but another hooker could put 10 perfectly timed unpredicted passes to a runner, putting him through a gap and contributing to more than 400 metres per game.

Not at all as it was in response to this -



Using Burrow from the bench has been a successful tactic in the past and present and would probably be in the future. The only way using a dynamic Burrow from the bench would not influence the game is if he is kept there for the full eighty in a coach thinking outside the box type nonsensical ploy.

Having one of the better SL back threes on kick returns (Hardaker, Jones-Bishop, Hall - 2013 and Hardaker, Briscoe, Hall - 2014) and a freakish prop (Peacock) making a notable contribution in the overall figures with limited input from the acting half skews that particular stat.

Of course it's not Burrow's fault Wakefield were poor. You can only play what's in front of you.

Leeds metres are mainly made by JP carting it up or from our outside backs.

My critique of Burrow at hooker is accurate.

But you were maligning Burrows top performances because it was only Wakefield.




No not correct. Our forwards have made more metres than the backs so far this season.

Anyway your argument against Burrow at 9 is not consistent or logical. If as you say our outside backs are making good metres (and IMO more effective this year) then credit must go to Burrow at acting half back for shipping the ball out. If as I say that our forwards are making good metres too then this also has to reflect well on Burrow.



So my friend I submit that your critique of Burrow this time is unfair, lacking balance and therefore inaccurate. Whatever next - you'll be saying that Bailey is a good prop I shouldn't wonder!

Like I said earlier, we can't read too much into the Wakefield game. What next Moon at six for the foreseeable? It was an autopilot performance. In first gear mode.



So Burrow is solely credited for this?

He was our best attacker against Saints and for most of the season so far too. Moon is a quality player and can play centre or at 6



Never said that. But with Burrow as our principal 9 for both last season and this Leeds have been top metre makers so much of the criticism of Burrow at 9 is OTT.

Perhaps they have (I haven't checked) but the point being made that you categorically say is incorrect appears to shift a notable major contributor from one sub-set in your follow up comment to the other and I'd imagine that would have a notable bearing on the outcome.

You also perhaps need to clarify if this is all games or just the regular rounds?, which players belong to which sub-set ?, how have you treated the players who have started in both the forwards and the backs this season? and how you have allocated the totals from the players who started on the bench - while generally I imagine you have them belonging to the forward sub-set - but what if a back were to pull a hamstring in the opening few minutes or be carried off on a stretcher in the 1st half? both have happened in the opening eight rounds so which sub-set would the replacement's figures go into on such occasions?

You've obviously done some form of calculation in order to give the definitive response that you have but more information would be helpful to verify it's accuracy/potential inaccuracy.