As is your right but just because you haven't seen or heard said Sinfield comments that of itself doesn't mean they don't exist. There is at least now evidence that two entirely independant posters on here believe that they do.

_____

I can't help feeling there is a lawyer out there desperate to get his hands on said comment to expertly spin - sorry - interpret them.

'No-where does he say demand blah, blah, blah. That'll be £295.'

If you're relying on witness evidence the credibility of those witnesses is very important.

As I assume you don't have Sinfield's ear it's safe to assume you're read those comments from Sinfield somewhere. Given how the internet works there should be a record. You're often pretty good at digging stuff up. You even have paper archives don't you?

Sinfield HAD to play 6 when McDermott first took over as McGuire was out for the 1st third of the 2011 season with his knee injury. During that period Sinfield almost single handedly dragged us through games. He certainly played better than Burrow did at 7 at the same time. When McGuire came back Burrow wasn't in as good a form as Sinfield so he was the one sacrificed and put into a impact sub role (which produced his best form in years).
The reason he now starts is that non of the other hooker options are Buderus quality.
The reason Sinfield won't start at 13 again is because McDermott has gone down the route of having a big forward there instead to start games. If he wanted Sinfield (or a more playmaker type) to play there but couldn't because of refusal then the obvious replacement to fit that gameplan wouldn't be Bailey. It clearly shows he wants something different from his starting Loose whether people agree with it or not.

Yes. If you want more detail, I could explain how Bailey defends in the middle, rather than the traditional LF spot of R3...this is "tradition"

Go on then, quote the full sets of tackle numbers, you know you want to

The non-tackling hooker is something I expect to see more and more of - think about it - you want a fast and agile player, he has to handle the ball every play, why do you want him in the middle of the defensive action? Along with the increasing use of ball playing fullbacks meaning teams don't use their LF as an extra pivot and can use the LF as a middle defender, that gives scope to take the hooker out of the middle unit.

Yes, the formation typically survives, barring the middle four - which is why they get listed just as a group rather than in alignment.

Think of numbers of players to "hide" (2nd and 3rd man in spots) rather than who's where. If you play three of those and one isn't the fullback, you will get two next to each other. If one of the three is a more robust LF type, then ideally you would have him as one of the pair.
Without checking each team, most tend to not use a ball playing loose nowadays, having another runner/tackler there.

I don't think 'if' in that situation I'm thinking why.

If one is a more robust LF type then why are you trying to hide him at all? If he's also proved himself to be a very effective tackler throughout his career but comparitively slow why place him in a position he's likely to be exposed in by quicker players with better evasive footwork?

Seems a lose/lose option to me, weakens the centre edge and weakens the flank.



While I agree Bailey has been used as a starting loose/rotation prop the likes of Ablett, Clarkson and Ward haven't while also starting at loose. As they rather than Bailey/Kirke represent the majority of this seasons loose forwards how do they adequately cover the hooker's traditional defensive role while also in addition replicating the Sinfield (similar types) average?

Sinfield has operated as a protected half in defensive formations this year with Burrow selected as the majority starting hooker yet Bailey/Kirke have provided defensive cover in the minority of those games. So while I can accept the ploy when it's in operation what happens on those occasions when it isn't?



We'll see. Roby shows how it's possible to do both and to an excellent standard. Clarke at Castleford looks capable of developing in to a similar type. Houghton at Hull is also more than capable, McIlorum at Wigan could be very good once he controls his anger management issues - I could go on. As long as the game is developing quality all round hookers I don't see the prospect of the half-hooker gaining a foothold except in the impact role from the bench that Burrow should be used in - if he's going to play acting half.



Increasingly so - hopefully Hardaker will be able to discover the inner ball player to supplement his already excellent other attributes.

Personally I see the defensive line as three groups of four. Props, hooker and loose forward in the middle, with second row, centre, half back and wing on each side, in that order. People move around and get dragged into tackles out of position, but its their responsibility to get back to their zone.

Having Burrow as our hooker means that our middle 4 is 1 short, so we have to shuffle about effectively leaving one side with 2 halfbacks.

In terms of this new robust loose forward, I personally think that its a bit deskilled compared to 10 years ago. Top players like Farrell and Sculthorpe could take the ball in as well as any of the forwards, and make plenty tackles too, whilst still being capable of moving the ball about and running wide.

Sinfield for me was always a but small for Loose Forward, but certainly punched above his weight in defence. However, he's obviously reached a point in his career where he can no longer take making 30+ tackles a game for a whole season.

in the opposite to the loose forward role, the fullback has become more half-back like, where previously the players were more like Centre/Wingers who were pretty good runners and could chimme into the line well, but not make play.

In terms of getting more out of all of your players this arrangement seems to make sense

I think we're talking about entirely different things here. Who are you thinking of with "more robust LF type" ?
I'm thinking of players like Bailey there. Not the ball players like (historically) Farrell, and Sculthorpe Sinfield. In fact with a player, who has typically played prop, like that you are probably exposing him rather than hiding him if you put him in the edge four.


As I showed in the second line up - the LF replaces the hookers role in the middle four. The hooker takes what was the LF role in the edge four.


We re-adjust. You still have a middle four, their makeup just differs. We might find ourselves with two props and the two second rows there. The real downside then isn't the type of player there, but that you are making significant changes to the lineup and players find themselves defending next to players they aren't familiar with. That's just a decision to make - how much do you chance your arm in attack with additional players, and is that worth the risk of what that does to your defence?


I'm not so sure. The more recent solution has obviously been to employ too hookers, and protect them from the high defensive workload that way. As teams change to playing an 80 minute hooker, then if they also employ a prop-style of player, I think we'll see that change.
I put my hooker and loose forward both in the middle four by the way, so both left and right defence are the same (SR, C, half, wing) but that's as much down to utilising the players available and playing in the style that the pros use so they're prepared for the next stage of their career, as it is any tactical development.



I can see that as a challenge for us. We seem to be trying to use Hardaker like that (still lots of plays that send him overlapping around the back with a centre and winger outside him) but he's more runner than passer right now. I wonder if there will be a change next year to forget the fullback as a passer and go to our three pivots as SH, SO and LF.

.....all seems a bit of a faff just to accommodate Sinfield at SO when also having to find a place for McGuire AND Burrow. What was so bad about McGuire at SO ??

......and if it's so much harder for Sinfield to play out his remaining career at LF due to his ageing bones then pity poor old John Holmes, who moved the opposite way from playing the majority of his career at SO to then finding himself having to mix it in the pack with those bigger, harder, nastier buggers who dished out a lot more unpunished facials and clobberings.

Aye them were t'good old days....

Aye ! But we wouldn't have to accommodate Burrow at hooker, if we didn't have to accommodate Sinfield at SO.......

I feel Burrow at hooker is all about.....playing Burrow at hooker, and nothing to do with where Sinfield plays.