Not really. With Burrow at hooker and Mcguire and Sinfield in the halves, we play a tackling loose forward (most recently Bailey) in the middle of the defensive line, so have three pivots to hide on the edge.
With the older lineup of Burrow and Mcguire in the halves and Sinfield at loose, we play a tackling hooker in the middle of the defensive line, so have three pivots to hide on the edge.
No difference.

Which is what you'd expect from any player. All players should have an input as to how the team fits together and plays.

This takes out Ward from the squad which I actually think is the correct decision. With Burrows or Lunt on the bench we need three forwards that take hit ups...Ward has been great and although it would be a tough blow for him I think it would be the right decision.

I disagree. Sinfield used to regularly defend closer to the middle than he currrently did, and usually was towards the top of the tackle counts

Apart from being caught there on occasion, as any player might, I can't really recall him doing much defending other than at right two or right three. Unless (as may teams do) we go to just two pivot players, one side of your defensive line will always have two pivots. Perhaps that's part of the reason for the modern game featuring ball playing fullbacks, as they become one of the pivots and you only have to hide two, one each side, in the defensive line.

It would appear his evidence is lacking somewhat.

Does anyone really believe Kevin would suddenly demand he only plays a certain position and does anyone really believe McDermott would acceed such demands? Why, all of a sudden? Whilst Kevin has played his fair share of 6 in the past it was mostly whilst MvGuire and Burrow were still developing or one was injured. It's only under McDermott he's had such a lengthy run at 6.
Could it be the fairly obvious case that this coach, unlike his predecessors, sees 6 as Kevin's best role in the team?

TVOCs fantasy that Kevin was omitted from the GB squad in 2004 for the same thing bears even less scrutiny

I was at RAF Loussie some weeks back and witnessed the moving "Missing Man" flypast at the funeral of one of the pilots. The GR4's approached in V formation at just over 100 feet on full afterburners. As they came over the mess the leader pulled up in almost a vertical climb and disappeared into the clouds as the others continued at low level. With the piper playing and the bugle sounding it made the hairs stand up on the back of the neck.

I used to make turbine blades for the Tornado

It was most boring job I have ever done, but whenever I see a Tornado flying, I like to think I've contributed for it being in the air

Sinfield seldom played 6 during the early years of Burrow and McGuire unless one or the other were injured. Dunneman was usually the other half back in the early years. Sinfield has stated his preference these days is to play 6 - anyone who thinks his views do not carry huge influence - quite rightly - is deluded. Burrow is another who gave Leeds an option - either start me or I want away - again you cannot argue with his desire to want to start he has earned that right. As the coach what do you do - this group of players has effectively put an end to the previous two coaches?

And I suppose Bailey said he would leave if he couldn't play loose forward!

For whatever reasons McDermott's selections produced last years SL Champions and Cup Finalists, this years World Club Champions and repeat Cup and Grand Finalists. So it is difficult to argue against these selections when they have produced the goods.

Sinfield playing a controlling game at 6 has been a major influence on our success as has Burrow at 9. Last week against Wigan IMO Burrow was at his most effective when running from the acting half back position.

Its the coaches choice. It must be. I recollect at times this year 6-7 playing out of position.

Hardaker
Ablett
McGuire
Burrow
Sinfield
Bailey
Delaney

They cant all be self selecting can they ???

A tackling loose-forward as opposed to a non-tackling one?

When Sinfield was the loose-forward he was at the same time one of the leading tacklers in the team. He no longer is after the switch to stand-off. His defensive workload is roughly 40% lighter when you compare the last two seasons with the four previous to that. That's what Sinfield was asking for and the switch in defensive positioning has delivered.

The non-tackling hooker appears to be a McDermott invention and the loose forward really has his work cut out if he's going to replicate what Sinfield did defensively in that position while also making up for the missing tackles around the ruck area.

Except of course he did play 6 on occassion. I'll give you one. 2004 GF. McGuire at 7, Burrow on the bench. Did Sinfield demand that selection?

So you say. So says TVOC.

I believe neither of you. There's no evidence whatsoever to support it. Let's face it, you're hardly objective when it comes to Sinfield or, for that matter Burrow.

Exception being the case - up until McDermott arrived. Sinfield is the most important player in the team it is important he is appropriately accomodated within the structure. In attack nothing has changed he just defends nearer the touchline which puts him up against their fastest and most skillful 3/4 in the centre. What I cannot understand is why the structure had to change, this then has a knock on effect on Burrow and McGuire. Depending on your view - and your views on McGuire are far from objective - determines who should play at 7. Mcguire gives more structure, Burrow gives more impact. Starting Burrow at 9 means you can't have a Buderus/Diskin style of hooker to defend in the middle. If McDermott starts Burrow at 9 this will cause defensive issues in the middle.

Perhaps some are more equal than others? and in a game where players are expected to have the ability to play in various positions the above is hardly a shock to most. Sinfield may have listed as 7 but did his game changed from when he played 6? Bailey at 13 does he do anything different than when he plays 10?