When I last used to watch the academy quite a bit, which was coincidentally in the period Ablett was coming through, I remember him wearing 4 a few times. Not as often as 13 perhaps. Can't actually remember him at 6, but I'll take your word for that. He also played at 4 in some of those ostensibly first team pre-season matches at places like Hunslet and York when he was on the fringes of the first team. Probably around 05 or 06 I would suppose.

Does tvoc keep line-ups from pre-season games?

I don't think tvoc even knew there was a pre-season until you just said that.

Doesn't he hibernate between October and February?

I was told about Chase yesterday and it was supposedly this week Chase was spotted at HQ

as to why Mcshane isnt bein played Ive been told its down to his style of game and that Mcdermott prefers a smaller hooker with a quicker pass! Whatever that means. For me Mcshane should be playing now if he is surplus to requirements to the coach but has just signed a new deal does that mean that it will be the coach thats really surplus to requirements and he just doesnt know it yet

Some interesting comments on here regarding Chase. My opinion for whats its worth is exactly the same as our
much criticised coach. Burrow was poor at the start of the season and his main weekness is lack of organisational skills, a reason he has not progressed as an international. In maguire and burrow we lack the creative halfback who can dictate play and move players around the field (Dobson and Dureau) style players. Burrow is a fantastic player and can terrorise defenses with his speed of the mark and agility as well as pulling off match winning breaks and moments of individual brilliance. The reason our coach has persisted with the Maguire Sinfield combination is because it gives us more stucture and stabilty at halfback. Burrow comming off the bench as an impact hooker is the best option for Leeds and strangley enough Leeds have improved since our coach made this change. Another player who has improved no end and has finally found his feet in the second row is Delaney. Again
no coincidence Leeds have improved the go forward in the pack since his switch to 2nd row and Peacocks improvement since returning from injury.

If we can get Chase then that would improve us as a team no end. We have two of the best and form second rowers in the game at the moment in JJB and Delaney.

Let buderus go back to the knights next year, let Smith go and move sinfield to 13 and start with McShane at 9.
Burrow as an impact hooker off the bench and sign a quality centre.

Team.

Webb (Ben Jones Bishop)
Ben Jones Bishop (Wilson)
New Signing ( I would like Michael Jennings) (Hardaker)
Watkins (Carl Amblet)
Hall (Chisholm)
Chase (Sinfield)
Maguire (Burrow)
Griffin (Moore)
Mc Shane (Burrow) (Hood)
Peacock (Amor)
Delaney (Kirk)
JJB (Huraki)
Sinfield (Clarkson)

Subs

Leauluai (Ambler)
Bailey (Singleton)
Amblet (Pitts)
Burrow (Ward)

A lot of people on here slag Mc Dermott off all the time, lets give him some credit when he deserves it. I think in the later half of the season he has got a lot of the calls right IMO. The play offs are not dead and Leeds are going into them on the back of a fresh team and playing thier best rugby of the year.

TR whilst the improvement in performance is there for all to see it couldn't of got much worse and it's the very least we should expect from this squad.
The Coach has rightly been criticised both for selections and a lack of structure and when you hear him describe Moore has "having huge potential" and his continual selection of the likes of Kirke and earlier in the season Hauraki when they add the impact of a mouldy tomatoe then he deserves all he gets.
Oh and on the Burrow situation the "Golden Triangle" playing in their natural positions has brought plenty of silverware ,success and much better performances than we have witnessed thus far this season so i think i know which option i'd reckon was the best for Leeds.

The 'golden triangle' did win plenty of silverware, but that was over 2 years ago now. Who is to say that the players are capable of the things that they were back then.

Something some posters seriously seem to lack the concept of understanding, despite standing out like a sore thumb.

That is no dig at you rhinoms by the way. It was general statement.

It is also often overlooked that Sinfield will basically play the same way whether he's 6 or 13. He is a 13 in the mold that plays as a half back, rather than the big biff-and-bash type favoured in the NRL. The decision on whether he is named at 6 is more about whether you want 3 players in that role or 2.

The difference being defensively though.

Our 6 & 7 have, certainly in recent years, always defended between the centre and the winger. This is also true when Sinfield is named at 6.

I agree with what you're saying r.e. Sinfield and it makes no odds as to whether he's named as 6 or 13 as he does pretty much the same thing as both. But that only applies to attack. When named a 6, Sinfield also defends out in the wings. Stats show this to be true...

[iYear - Position - Tackles[/i
2007 - Predominately Loose - 817
2008 - Predominantly Loose - 748
2009 - Predominantly Loose - 758
2010 - Approx half and half - 587
2011 - Predominantly Stand Off - 525

So to say he "basically play the same way whether he's 6 or 13" is only true in attack. Defensively, you can clearly see he gets through far fewer tackles when named at 6. Now, whether or not you want him to be doing more or less tackles is open to opinion and debate. Which is fine.

But I just wanted to clear up this [i"It makes do difference whether he's named at 6 or 13"[/i myth, because it clearly does make a huge difference. Whether or not it's a good or bad difference is for each of us to decide, but it's a difference nonetheless.

Interesting stats there. I wonder if this is a way of keeping Sinfield fresh as he gets into his 30s. On the other hand it might explain why our defence hasn't been as good in the last 2 seasons as it was in the previous 3.

Well I'd suggest that they were the two key points for and against.

1) Keep him fresh so we attack better, but in doing so remove one of our best tacklers from the middle of the park.
2) Utilise the tackling machine so we defend better, but have your key playmaker tiring as the match progresses.

Basically... the problem is that one of our best tacklers is also one of our best playmakers, and he's getting on a bit and unlikely to be able to fill both roles. I'd suggest we're going to have to give up one or the other!

I like Kevin Sinfield the playmaker, but I also like Kevin Sinfield the tackling machine....

... but which is better?...

... there's only one way to find out...

... FIIIIII....... oh, hang on a minute.

He has a phenomenal workrate in defence. His execution doesn't always match the effort though, and he has always had a slight tendency to go too high and get brushed off. That's being hyper-critical I realise, but it could also be a reason not to have him making so many tackles?

Are we saying that with Sinny defending out wide the team is making 200+ fewer tackles per season or is it simple that Sinny can only tackle what comes his way and while out wide doesn’t have to tackle forwards?

Now I’m a lazy b’stard but if I wasn’t then you may find that if you totalled all the players tackling stats they would be roughly the same over the past 5 or 6 seasons.

I'm not. I've been back through tvoc's stat threads and totalled the player who started as Loose's tackle counts for all 27 rounds. It's flawed because some were subbed off, on 3 occasions it was Sinnie himself, some didn't play as a Loose despite being named there, and one of the players in question was Weller Hauraki.

690ish. Can't remember the exact figure.

So it's not that the team are making 200+ fewer tackles, (although it is make 50ish fewer tackles!), but it's more that, IMO, it lacks defensive structure with Sinnie "out of position".

It's all opinion.