Lots of sense in this thread.

Actually think we look better when we start with the back row grafters, Ablett and Kirke.

Good to see that people are seeing the Buderus quality.

Not having Burrow in the team means that we aren't messing around shuffling the defensive formation and we aren't giving the oposition an easy target to run at.

Big fan of Burrow - match winner - but it feels like we've turned the clock back 5 years and we can't play McGuire and Burrow in the same starting line up!

Perhaps using Diskin more outwide as a 2nd Centre down one side, not playing a traditional role but helping create more gaps out wide for run arounds with say him, Senior & Hall would confuse defenders. It would just add another dimension in attack and also help with dumy half distribution out wide as he would still be utilised as act in half down that channel. In defence he would be on the inside of Senior playing a similar defensive role as he does now. Not sure quite how this would work but it's a thought.

Mate not sure about that one at all!? You been drinking as much as me tonight?

Saints have a better prospect in Wheeler at either 6/7 they don't need Myler and neither do we.

For me I would like to see - in an easier game - a Webb/McGuire half back combination with Smith at FB and Senior on the right with Donald

The problem for both Burrow and McGuire when Sinfield plays is he dominates the play so neither has the opportunity to control play - as I said before Sinfield is too slow both physically and mentally to play the playmaker - but sadly he will be in that position until he retires.

This is all in your head David. It does not happen. Are problems are when we allow Burrow to control, he is not up to been the general. When Sinfield does not play the team catipulates, proven each time Sinfield has missed a game.

Sinfield plays 6 in every game he plays - the difference is when he has only one option either Burrow or McGuire he can cope with more than that he struggles

Possible you're right, I thoguht at the time of posting that he isn't big or fast enough but he is a good ball handler and relatively good organiser. Like Lauiti'iti connects the left side to the centre of the park, diskin could do the same but instead of diagonal runs like Ali does he could be employed out there all the time rather than centre of the park. I believe it would confuse the opposite wing man and centre, sucking them in to create over laps. Saying this using him of the right would likely be useles due to our style atm.

Not sure that is quite right Disa - who captained the side in the CC semi v Huddersfield - he only missed one game last year the home win against Castleford - we lost 7/8 games last season with him on the field so the facts do not support your opinion neither does idea that Sinfield controls the attack - watch the games back again.

you are obsessed & so very wrong

it is all in your head, thank the lord you are nowhere near coaching the team and all we have to do is chuckle at your bizarre repetitive rambings on the web

You'd ''consider letting him go'' eh?

Thankfully you're not the coach.

although the aussie haven't used many "overseas" cricketers keppler vessels (former south africa captain) played test cricket for them. on topic i though sinfield created more without having to do his usual defencive stint which allowed our backs some real quality ball and mcguire was a great foil to the good work his forwards were doing

What do people think about binning Diskin and using Burrow as an impact hooker until McShane is ready?

Buderus/Burrow would, imo, be more inline with the '2 hooker' system others use (Cunningham/Roby being the obvious one).

Would line us up as;

1 Webb
6 Sinfield
7 McGuire
9 Buderus
13 Ablett

Sub Burrow

What would people make of that?

I think it'd be more of what the international SH thought about sitting on the bench and then playing at 9 when used