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.

I think its a bit of a marriage of convenience

Married to a hooker?

You are arguing for the sake of arguing - Sinfield was playing 6 when we had Buderus, so we had no need to accomodate Burrow at 9. We also had 2 hookers in the 25 man squad in McShane and Hood so again no need for Burrow at 9. If Burrow was our 9 why did we sign Lunt, it is not as if Burrow can't play 80 minutes. Sinfield playing 6 leaves only one half back position - McDermott obviously prefers McGuire to Burrow at 7 so what do you do with Burrow. He - quite rightly - doesn't want to be an impact player. If Sinfield stayed at 13 this would not be an issue

Burrow isn't being accommodated in selection. No player is being accommodated in team selection. All that's happening is McDermott has shown he doesn't want to play with a ball playing loose forward right now, so has picked some particular players in particular positions to give our team the best chance of winning. Nothing is about accommodating any particular player.

The "accomodation" referred to how the team organises their defence, not which players they select. You've missed the point by a wide margin.

You want your most dangerous players to have the ball in their hands as often as possible.

At Wigan, Sam Tomkins might only touch the ball once or twice in a set because of the position he plays.

By playing Burrow at hooker, you give him maximum time with the ball in his hands to exploit any opportunities he sees.

But by bringing Burrow into the game after 25 mins he gets to do it against tiring forwards. A proven plan, why change it? Lunt & Mags to start, Burrow from the bench.

Because for 25 minutes of the game, your most dangerous player is sat in the dugout.

Precisely and why he been our main strike weapon this season.

I understand where your coming from saying we have our most dangerous player sat on the bench for 25 mins but personally i rhink its better having burrow starting on the bench due to the injection of pace that he adds when he comes on against those tiring forwards can be devestating as we saw against saints last year when he danced through the line , tactically this is the best way to use him and it was how we were using him last year which in my opinion produced some of his best performances for a couple of years

I agree to a certain extent, but having a dangerous player, and giving him the ball twice as much doesn't always result in twice the impact.

Burrows impact is that he is quick agile and elusive, more so than any other player in the league (other than Tomkins). That gap is obviously at its widest when he is fully fresh, and they are fatigued.
Also every tackle he makes, or hit he receives will hurt him more than it does the bigger and stronger blokes

To get the best out of him I think you need to balance the amount of time he's on the pitch, with the relative levels of fatigue to get the best impact

Like

My way of looking at it is that Burrow is in the firing line for those first 25 mins taking all sorts of punishment from fresh forwards. Then he's not as effective later in the game. Remember the wcc against Manly (2009)? Watmough smashed him big time and wee-mans game was over.