Nantwich Burrow has plenty of "assists" to his name and only look back to the GF for evidence of his creativity so to question this is way OOT and blind to what he can/has do/done to create trys.

I think putting McShane in on Friday could be a recipe for disaster seen as though Brian Mc hasn't shown any faith in him what so ever during the 2 games leading up to it.

He should of been given some game time on Saturday - Why has wasn't for me is confusing.

But who else have we got to play there at the moment?

Not at all .... I like Burrow's attitude, skill and devastating pace once he's broken the line. However, I stand by my contradiction to his purported "creativity" .... Burrow is entirely predictable but his abilities can still make effective outcomes. There is a difference.

Yes he is creative and has made a couple of try assists in the 2 games so far including a nice pass for our only try at Wigan. He was constantly trying to be creative and was possibly the greatest threat to a very good Wigan defence. I know they have very different styles but I am not sure quite what McShane could have added had he been on instead of Burrow.

So are you saying that McShane is more creative than Burrow?

I'd say McShane is more creative in the hooking position than Burrow is in the hooking position, Burrow is more creative as a scrum-half. Which begs last week's big question being aired once again - why is coach McDermott selecting Burrow as the starting hooker?

I'm hoping you guys do the business. You need to be better disciplined than against Wigan and keep up the pace like you did for spells in the 2nd half at the DW, quick runs from dummy half and be more clinical when you get field position and a better kicking game. Also posession was a big factor to the result Saturday I know Albert crippled you for an hour on Saturday but to be fair most of them were pens. I'm rooting for you.... COME ON ENGLAND !!!!!!!!!!!

Thank you. Could NOT have put it better myself. McShane has a useful short kicking game for a start. He is also built more like a forward and tough enough to bustle a forward or two out of the way close to the line after a feign to pass.

Brian mac says chances of lee smith being fit for Friday are slim. However kallum Watkins should be fit https://mobile.twitter.com/#!/georgeyboy

Brian mac says chances of lee smith being fit for Friday are slim. However kallum Watkins should be fit https://mobile.twitter.com/#!/georgeyboy

Burrow is a fantastic scrum half and the most dangerous player on our books. He's been in far better form, creatively, than McGuire for quite some time now.

People should recall that Burrow two crackerjack games at the end of last season, Warrington away and the Grand Final, did NOT come at hooker. Buderus played the full 80 in both those games.

It's way beyond time Burrow was put at scrum half from the start on a regular basis. If Sinfield has to be 6 then McGuire should wait for an injury for his chance (though I'd prefer Sinfield at 13).

I assume coach McDermott was consulted when Buderus was allow to renege on the final year of his deal and that he was happy with the players we had? It's time to urinate or get off the pot with McShane. The coaches reluctance to give him any meaningful game time is hindering his and the team's progression.

My only hope is he think Hood is the real deal and the answer and the current tactic is just a stop gap until Hood is fit.

It's something that needs deciding.

Leaving McShane hanging around without being played is a weird type of torture for a player.

Playing 10 mins between halfs against KR, then 'sub not used' against Wigan, doesn't send a positive message about what 'Leeds Rhinos' think of Paul McShanes talents.

With the last 20 mins to go with Wigan I thought 'it will be nice to see him get a run out now the games gone' it didn't happen. For what benefit?

May as well run out with 16 men on Friday.

16 men and two fewer substitutions than season's past.

You'll definitely find that GH was consulted and it was GH who allowed Buderus to renege on the final year of his contract, but only on the condition that a suitable replacement was provided.

Question: How many of the illustrious Magnificent Seven remain at the club?

Question: How many of the illustrious Magnificent Seven were allowed to renege on the final year of their contracts?

Question: How many of the illustrious Magnificent Seven had their contracts terminated during their final year?

Question: How many were allowed to renege on the final year of their contracts who weren't illustrious members of the Magnificent Seven?

But prior to those final two games of last season Burrow did come on as a replacement hooker for Buderus and made a regular impact. When Buderus returned after half time the usual tactic was for Burrow to revert to SH and a forward went off. With fewer replacements this year this same tactic would mean Sinfield having to take on much more heavier work.

I think Hood being injured brought about the experiment of starting Burrow at 9 which although not my preference has actually not been a failure either. Our troubles are to do with wide out defence, poor form at half back and a very poor kicking game.

I agree with you that if Sinfield is to continue at 6 then Burrow should replace McGuire at SH as he looks far sharper at present.

Having said that for the WCC I would prefer to see Sinny back to 13 with Burrow at 7 and Mags at 6 again and give McShane a go.

So... Webb, BJB, Watkins, Hardaker, Hall, McGuire, Burrow, Bailey, McShane, JP, JJB, Delaney, Sinfield with Griffin, Moore, Ablett & Hauraki. This means Leuluai & Clarkson missing out