He can work internally on his fitness, IF that's what the issue is. I don't see how playing for Hunslet at a level where you drop intensity and velocity is vital this week. I'd keep him in and around the team as much as possible (unless there's issues we don't know about).

How many hookers play 80 minutes in Super League?

Burrow



Your point is valid....McShane AND Hood rotated from the bench would have been a best from we have got situation (and well established already this season with a 'decent' coach)

Kirke was equally as bad as McShane last week, even allowing for unjury. No crappy spreadsheets can hide that.

but yet we all know he will still get a gig.

Very few professionals remain professional at all times; personal relationships will always affect decisions. How anybody can deny that Leeds' coach has a better [ipersonal[/i relationship with some more than others is barmy. The proof is very much in the pudding

Having watched a couple of Hood's performances for Hunslet this season, if they are reflective of his season as a whole then he's nowhere near ready for regular SL rugby.

It's a big step up from 10-15 minute cameo appearances off the bench to playing more minutes every week. Jury's out on whether he can do that IMO.

...but those 10-15 minute cameos with McShane given the rest might just have been enough to begin with.

I hope to gods Leeds do have the Lunt signing up the sleeve for next season

McShane's had ample time to show that he can become an 80 minute hooker with decent defence and stamina to match his abilities with the ball.

Not done it, despite having one of the best of his era in that position on the coaching staff for the last couple of years.

Point and squawk at McDermott for his selection policies all you like, fact is McShane hasn't made himself undroppable or earned the leeway that some of the more senior members of the squad get. That's down to one person.

Possibly so....but he seemed to be very much more respected for his abilities at Widnes.



I can't deny from what I have seen McShane is nowhere near Lunt's pedigree, never mind Buderus's. However, I do believe if the combination of McShane AND Hood combined had being better utilised it might by now have had a better outcome. We'll never know now of course; unless both end up at another club together and return to consistently haunt us.

Like the fact that some people demand 80 minutes as bare minimum from Macca.

Classic Southstanders

Whereas Kirke has?
You could also add Burrow, McGuire, Sinfield, JJB and Hall to that list over the season.
I am not saying McShane should not have been dropped.
I am saying some players seem to get more leniency than others.

Come on - Big fish, small pond.

I wouldn't have any of their players in our full strength 17.

Admit rhinos. You've backed the wrong horse yet again

I think the point is he doesn't work "internally on his fitness" and perhaps the level at Hunslet is nearer his mark





The answer is most of the top ones can play the full 80 if they need to. McShane struggles with 40 minutes

So if he doesn't work on his fitness internally (god knows how you would know that), what's he doing anywhere near the team?

'most' - not the statistically accurate answer I was expecting.

He should be at least able to do 80 but struggles with 60. But as the chief cheerleader for Bailey I can understand why you accept the bar to be set at a low level. Classic BB

He 'struggles with 60 minutes'......

He 'struggles with 40 minutes'.......

Where's the next 'finger in the air' judgement coming from?

I'm all for talking TMFMISL but let's keep on topic.

Macca is not happy about being sent to Hunslet but was told he just hasnt been good enough all season so had to go to the Hawks where he will play as a stand off from what I have been told, Although how thats going to improve his form as a Hooker I dont know

I have also been told that there is a feeling the coach wants a Lunt/Roby type of number 9 and as was said on another thread thats just not Maccas game theres also a feeling that both Macca and Hood are being forced into leaving so the club dont have to pay up their full contracts and could use the £££ to sign Lunt

Some of the stuff I have heard regarding how they have both been treated by the coach leaves me to believe this maybe the case expect both to leave by the end of the year

Well he does seem to lack the stamina of some of his elderly teammates. We know Burrow and Lunt can go for 80 and I am sure Roby, Mcllorum, Houghton and Henderson all can as well

Not convinced about the forced into leaving so don't have to pay contracts up. I think we as a club have really been at fault with Hood's development, but I would still predict that both him and McShane could probably have better careers elsewhere than Leeds and earn more money, so don't see the point with the pay up contracts.

If McShane was to move to another SL club who do you think would sign him?

IMO some of our rivals have 2 better hookers than our No9

It's less challenging to go 80 minutes when you're only making 3 or 4 tackles a game.

While a 80-minute, Cameron Smith type may be the ideal for position, his ability is pretty rare and of the names you mention. McIlorum, Henderson and Lunt all play spells as hooker for their current clubs and Roby is only an 80-minute hooker when he's not injured, from having been flogged as an 80-minute hooker.

Ok I will leave the benchman out of it. The point is BB that McShane really has had ample chances to prove himself and although he has done some good things, including improving his defensive work, he has also taken as many wrong options and never shown he can dominated a game as a key playmaker.

IMO he plays for himself too much and while sometimes his signature dummy and dive for the line comes off there are more times when it doesn't and moving the ball out to use an overlap or a kick would have been the better option.

Leeds need better and until we can recruit a class 9, I think our attack would be better with Burrow and Sinfield interchanging between hooker and halfback which would allow us to also play Sutcliffe and Ward (when fit) at the same time.

I didn't actually mean better career as in trophies, I did mean game time more than that. I think both would be more successfull elsewhere in that regard.

I am sure he will be averaging around 8 tackles per game actually (many of which are crucial one on one tackles) but he makes up for this with extra carries and metres which in turn helps to wear down defences. Burrow makes a much higher number on non dummy runner carries than most hookers.




I don't go along with this flogged business. Because players are given a short rest or if there are equal quality players to interchange is ok but the point is a professional player should be able to play for 80 if required even if it is the exception.

Benchman?? Who you on about now?



You won't find me waxing lyrical over McShane but I appreciate the technically demanding position being hooker commands. At the moment we are playing without out one.....so we are into new ground into how effective we will be.

Burrow has looked stronger this season when reverting back to his natural position of scrum half (with him always being on hand to scoot from dummy half anyway which is a massive asset).

As for Sinfield, he's a skilled pro. I'm sure he would dig in there. But we may miss his signature passes and places in the hot-bed of the attacking line.

The jury is out.