It's OK Harrigan, I never thought you were aiming anything at me. I don't think the explanation for Fielden's sudden demise was burn-out. If it was, how come he was largely burned back in last season? It isn't as if he played any less games.

I always suspected it was a combination of the tragic events around the time and this, coupled with the Mason incident, had triggered something.

I thought he was as average as he has been for the last 3 or 4 years last season. Dont let Eddie and Stevo influence your views

He never broke the line at all, he just ran the ball up, got hit and managed to get a few offloads out the back to keep the play going. He's not the guy that could break tackle after tackle in the mid 2000's.

I agree that what I've seen of him, he's not what he was, but he probably is what he would have been at his age anyway. As he doesn't play for us I only saw him in our games and the telly, and was pleased to see he was playing very well, by any standard. Though still a shadow of Fielden in his pomp. And i don't say it wasn't burnout, I just don't find the case for that at all convincing.

Something that might sway you then...

Brian McDermott and Jamie Peacock didnt start playing first grade until in thier 20's. McDermott was still one of the top props in the league in his 30's and Peacock is probably as good as any other prop in the league still now. Thats what happens when props make thier debuts later.

just as a side note wonder if burgess was given 29 shirt or if specifically asked for it?. would have thought next logical number to assign would be 27. pretty big statement of intent on Toms part if he's requested Fieldens old number and a big pair of boots to fill. Pretty impressed with him yesterday, put himself about a bit and looked pretty composed too.

I know he wasnt on long but averaging 11 meters per drive is very impressive. I hope he get's another go at Hull.

If a young player comes in and does well, he should stay in the side.

Obviously he's not ready to play every game, but I'd play him until he actually needs a rest, not drop him because we're scared he'll burn out.

He provided good impact off the bench and that will be helpful against Hull's pack.

both players never started as props too IIRC?

Not at all. Peacock's played 380-odd league games and Fielden 360-odd. Both have had comparable international careers. These stats don't say anything significant. Fielden was known as an 80 minute man but that is because he has a good engine, and was able to do it.

Fielden at his best was a far better and more skilful player than Brian Mc, and Peacock is just a freak of nature, but you can't use those two as any sort of reasonable comparison; Brian Mc performed a very different role to Fielden, and the reason Peacock started later was nothing to do with being held back, chomping at the bit, but simply because he was a late bloomer. If he'd been setting the league alight like the young Fielden, no coach would have kept him in the reserves.

Plus, Fielden is playing - let's just say, neutrally, "very well" - nowadays, so to argue he is "burned out" seems totally illogical to me.

Correct McDermott was a 2nd Row/Loose Forward and JP was a second rower

Fielden started in the second row too.

The numbers were issued back along with the others. The clue was there when they gave Briggs number 32 instead of the logical 26. It suggested there was 6 other players that had been issued squad numbers but not actually announced. Coincidentally, there were 6 players that everyone expected in there that weren't. (Burgess, O'Brien, Finigan, Southernwood, Bateman & McAvoy). Also the training video that was shown at one of the Pre-Season evenings (and temporarily on YouTube until the club realised and made it private), showed Burgess training with a number 29 on his training top, as well as Vinny Finigan with a number 28 on his.

He may have asked for it pre-season (although I think it's more likely it's just coincidence), but they certainly haven't just been issued with squad numbers now.

(Incidentally, none of that is "FACT", but I don't believe in those sort of things being coincidence!)

Besides, Adam O'Brien wore Number 27 at Huddersfield, so he couldn't have been given that.

No, you can't have Briggs 26 as it would lead to obvious confusion with the bus service to Brighouse from Bradford which has always been No. 26. They didn't want short-sighted people attempting to board him in the middle of a match.

Briggs being 32 does make it look like those numbers have already been assigned even if not announced.