Can someone please tell me why whenever anyone seems to come back McShane gets dropped?
Even though we seem to be short of out and out hookers especially when Burrow is at half back.
I don't pretend to be an expert but when I watch the home matches he always does ok or a good job?
What is the reason McDermott keeps dropping him?
Worst case scenario I could see him leaving Leeds!!!!

IF Mcshane is dropped for last weeks performance its deserved imo but that subject gets messy when you consider the other players who have stinkers and don't get dropped!!

He had a poor match last week, hence why he's being dropped. We can afford to do it as Sinfield is back.

I personally don't think he's good enough to be our number 9 but as discussed in countless other threads, opinion seems to be split on this one.

He didn't have the best of games last Friday night unfortunately. Which has resulted in him being farmed out to Hunslet this weekend.

Its very frustrating that we have an out and out hooker in McShane yet he never seems to get a good enough run of games to establish himself. Burrow starting at hooker does not work for me. If Sinfield is back, then he goes to 6, Burrow should stay at 7 and we need to leave McShane at 9 and see what he can do.

You can see the logic in sending the likes of Vickery...Achurch etc to learn some trade at Hunslet. Not sure what Macca will take from it.

But Bri Mac's line of 'its important Macca plays this weekend' is just cringworthy.

McShane is early in his career and has no pedigree. I don't believe you give all players the same leeway, some have earned a stinker every now and then. Simple solution for McShane is to not give the coach a reason to drop him.

McShane's been sniffing around the first team since 2008 and made his first team debut in 2009. Although I agree with you in that he should be playing well enough to earn his spot, I don't think we should consider him as a fledgling player any more.

No it's not. McShane needs to play to improve his fitness because as yet he is not capable of a full 80 minutes. Not only did he have a greedy stinker last time out but he tends to go missing in games. Perhaps his problem is Mrs Miggins's pie shop?

Yet if it was Kirke JC you'd have a spreadsheet of his stats and be defending him to the hilt would you not??

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.