Yes thats the way i would use Sutcliffe.We have a strong looking pack and a more than useful bench with everyone fit.This is how i would go:

8.Kylie
9.Mcshane
10.Peacock
11.Delaney
12.Ablett
13.JJB

14.Sutcliffe
15.Ward
16.Bailey
17.Singleton / Achurch

In my opinion, fwiw, he is already one of the best options we have at pivot. As much as I am grateful for what McGuire has achieved and like him as a player, he has not really been on top form this year and, as someone has already suggested, this latest injury is likely to only exacerbate his problems.

I would also suggest that utcliffe looks more like a stand off than a loose forward.

He has the talent and needs to learn his trade. He isn't going to do that by playing out of position and subjected to the higher physical demands of playing in the forwards. If the best option for the team is that Sinfield reverts back to loose forward, then that is what he should do. Whether he does or not is another matter, and I would tend to agree with your belief that he will not.

It doesn't matter which number they have on their backs - when Sinfield is back he'll occupy his usual position on the field and Sutcliffe will move to accommodate him.

Personally, from what little I've seen of Sutcliffe I've been impressed. He has got good hands and strength and can read a game. He's playing probably the most difficult position for a youngster to play, but ticks more of the boxes for a stand off than most players ten years older.

Is it ambitious to say that he reminds me a little bit of a young Paul Sculthorpe? I will immediately caveat it by saying he clearly has a long way to go to reach Sculthorpe's level, before anyone starts.

I would say that is ambitious.

When people talk of once in a generation player, I sometimes think they are been far too picky. You get a lot of quality players each and every year coming through. However, the likes of a Sculthorpe are indeed few and far between.

Same kind of build though, so I can see where you are going.

Pinning all future tie down of the stand off role on Sutcliffe, may end up not been fulfilled. From what I hear, Lilley in the under 16's is better still, and not that far behind in years.

Why not move sinfield to hooker ?

Takes Sinfield too far away from areas where he's going to be able to do most damage with his passing and kicking game.

He's also not got the acceleration you need to play dummy half in the modern era and exploit slow or lazy markers.

Thought you were talking about Sinfield, not McShane.

Gibbersh. Just gibberish.

Not taking an issue with whatever point you're attempting to make. I can overlook typos. I don't even bring up the been and being issue any more. However that sentence is just authentic frontier gibberish.

Blazing Saddles. Question, does Gotcha live in a town where everyone is related and have the same surname? Hang on a minute, that would be Cas!

Going back to the topic, Sutcliffe has made the first steps and needs to continue his devlopment. He isn't going to do that being played out of position. Although, I accept the point that, to some extent, the positions in question are interchangeable.
One thing I did notice on Friday was that he wasn't averse to the odd cheap shot in the tackle. If he continues with that and develops further, he'll be about as popular as Bailey by this time next year.

I actually think that playing him out of position is a good move. Get him ready for the physicallity of SL, without giving him the burden of being chief playmaker. He needs to get used to being hit by big blokes, and needs to get used to the speed of play before he can start to direct it

That is one argument, the potential for unnecessary injury through over work at a young age is another. In fairness, I aren't too fussed as long as he keeps getting a game because, he has demonstrated he is worthy of a place.

I would agree.Any game time he gets from now on is a bonus as i guess he has already had as much or more than he or the club would have anticipated at the start of the year.