The team I expect (preferred in brackets):
Hardaker
Hall
Moon
Watkins
Briscoe
Sinfield
Mcguire
Peacock
Aiton
Leuluai (Cuthbertson)
Ablett
Delaney
Cuthbertson (Sutcliffe)

Burrow
Sutcliffe (Leuluai)
JJB
Singleton

If we are short of a prop Yates, Mulhern and Minchella. If a second row Achurch, S Ward and Walters. Backs covered by Handley, Keinhorst and Goulding. Although there are the players at Featherstone but I would prefer them to get regular game time. Robbie Ward for Hooker although I don't mind if Sinfield goes there and Sutcliffe in the halves.
For the people that argue the younger players need more game time I am certain they will get alot the chances are six of the regular team will be injured as they are 30 or older. Alot of players in the squad who are forwards of or playmakers will get a decent amount of game time.

I agree with you regarding what to expect from Brian Mac. I expect Cuthbertson to be used as a 3rd middle man at #13 rather than a traditional loose forward ala Sutcliffe or even Stevie Ward.

The thing I believe the coach may opt for would be McGuire and Sutcliffe in the halves rather than Burrow.

For what it's worth I'd go with:
1. Hardaker
2. Briscoe
3. Watkins
4. Moon
5. Hall
6. Sutcliffe
7. McGuire
8. Kylie
9. Sinfield
10. Peacock
11. Ablett
12. Delaney
13. Cuthbertson

14. Burrow/R. Ward
15. S. Ward/Walters
16. Mulhearn/Achurch
17. Singleton/JJB/Yates

Mcguire to be used as a sub in my book this season

I think a better question would be "What would be our best team for 2016"? Now that's going to take some answering.

I'm still not sure why people think having a ball-player at 13 is still a "traditional" loose forward.

The closest thing to it in SL at the moment is O'Loughlin, but he's the exception. Most teams in SL use an extra ball-carrier at 13 these days.

When do trends become traditions? I'd say the most prominent loose forwards of the last 20 years have been big ball handlers rather than ball carriers (Handley, Farrell, Sculthorpe, O'Loughlin).
Would I be wrong in thinking that this was the traditional archetype of a Loose Forward?

I think some teams, including the Leeds team of 2015 are best suited to a ball carrying 13 due to the well highlighted light weight pack.

My team with back-ups in brackets:

Hardaker (Golding)
T. Briscoe
Watkins
Moon
Hall (Handley)
Sinfield
McGuire
Leuluai
Burrow
Peacock
Delaney (Achurch Walters))
JJB
Ablett (S. Ward)

Bench: Cuthbertson, Sutcliffe, Aiton (R. Ward) Singleton (Mulhern (Yates))

that's my view too as i have posted on here and on numerous occasions

lets hope that brian mac reads our comments on here andy

There's some logic behind Sinfield to 9 as in the last two years he's been doing enough tackles that he really isn't being 'hid' in the way a normal halfback would, compared to his lower numbers in 2011/12.

However he (like most people playing hooker) couldn't do it for 80 mins at his age. So what do you do? Sub him off? Not for me, his needs to be out there for his captaincy and leadership and from what we saw at times last year from the back-ups....his goal kicking.

To you shunt people around? Bring Burrow on for example to 9 and sub McGuire off with Sinfield moving to the halves? Again not for me. How often do you see teams alter their halves mid-match? Very rarely.....especially not by putting a guy there who'll have just done a gruelling stint at hooker making a load of tackles.

The problem with Sinfield at halfback is that he still does big numbers in the tackling department. There is a reason or two why the halves are 'hidden' in the defence......firstly obviously they aren't the strongest defenders typically, but also crucially to keep them fresh for attack.

No stats to back this up but I would assume when burrow is at hooker sinny covers his tackling?

i have no worries whatsoever that sinny can manage the majority of the 80 minute game time whilst playing at 9 and especially should we reach any big play off games, i believe that a move to 9 would also prolong his career,he also played his best games for england at 9 imo

however my major concerns and why i ultimately believe that he has to go there are that we haven't been successful in the 9 role with direction from the acting half since buderus and then lunt for one season left the club, we are also one of the weakest sides whilst attacking in the oppositions 20m zone as we totally lack half backs that can attack the defensive line constantly,i dont want to disrespect sinny but the defense have known how to deal with him for a while now

i would have liked us to have signed burns and dobson but as that hasn't occurred then i believe that we need to give sutty a roving and attacking free role to see if he can do the damage

Wouldn't shunt anyone around. Sinfield and Burrow split the 80 between them at dummy half. When Sinfield isn't on the field, Sutcliffe and Hardaker can handle the goalkicking between them.

With Sinfield, McGuire, Burrow and Sutcliffe on the field at times last year Leeds had way too many chiefs and Sutcliffe ended up being the spare part.

Sinfield does defend in the half back position doesn't he?
I had in my mind that most times he defends in between Watkins and Briscoe.
When Burrow is on I thought he went on the left with McGuire in between Hall & Moon. But then it's not something I actively look for so I could be wrong.

Which, whilst Burrow's defence isn't a problem, I think we miss the defence in the middle of a hooker. Both Diskin & Buderus helped take the line up in the middle and usually hit pretty hard too.

Personally I can't see Sinfield at 9 - not at this stage of his career - he would not be able to handle the defensive work load nor would he be quick enough to get to the PTB. He is no Buderus and that is what is required at 9 and its one of the reasons it doesn't really work with Burrow either. You are relient on other players to control the game something they have not been allowed to do for 12 years - agree if we had bought Dobson not an issue but Sutcliffe doesn't appear to me to be a controlling half back.

I could JJB being better suited to the role if his passing could be improved - he is leader and that's what you need from a hooker

He did defend in between BJB and Watkins a lot back in 2012 but towards the end of that season (the GF for example and the interception try Watkins scored vs Wigan in the playoffs) it saw him move the other side of Watkins more often. I believe it's been exasperated further by McGuire who usually defends left with Burrow but is sometimes coming over to the right side inbetween Briscoe and Watkins and Sinfield was then 4th man in. Its why on several occasions his year he's made 30+ tackles a match.....at Hudds away he made 42 tackles compared to Watkins' 18, at Saints away it was 31 compared to Watkins' 13.

Number of games Sinfield made LESS than 20 tackles in.....

2014 - 3 (21 league appearances)
2013 - 3 (22)
2012 - 15 (27)
2011 - 16 (27)

That also has something to do with teams deliberately attacking him to tire him as he is the key playmaker - stop him and because the way the attack is structured you stop Leeds. That has been largely successful in the last two seasons, last season was by far his worst and least effective. It also coincided with Leeds not having an experienced hooker, didn't Lunt depart at the end of 2012 and Buderus was there in 2011? You can't hide everyone so he had to do more tackling. How him playing hooker will benefit the structure of the side I cannot see.

Teams always like to the halves and Sinfield was playing there in 2011 & 2012. McGuire and Burrow will have been targeted throughout their career but I've never seen them have those kind of tackling numbers so it's more than the opposition targeting Sinfield.....its him getting involved more the last two years through not being as far out in the defensive line.

Whilst people aren't sold on Aiton (2014) and obviously McShane (2013) didn't end up lasting, both made many more tackles in those seasons than Lunt did in his season so we've actually had more tackles made by a proper hooker in these last 2 years where Sinfield's number has risen also.

Fair points what I was trying to say is that if you have Burrow and McGuire on the field at the same time then Sinfield has to defend 4 in otherwise you have two half back defending together against a centre and a second row. In years previous Leeds had other attacking options are weren't so reliant on all the plays going through Sinfield. These days everything goes through him so if you tire him he is far less effective. IMO he has been more targeted in the last two years than previously.

For me, whatever the combinations, the starting team needs to have, Hardaker, Briscoe, Watkins, Moon, Hall, Sinfield, Peacock, Cuthbertson, Ablett, and Stevie Ward in it. Others need to fit around that, then we see how it goes.

Thought Ward showed the benefits of a full off-season of gym work on Boxing Day. Seems to have put on plenty of bulk, without losing any mobility in the process.

Bigger tests await, but he's got everything in place to kick on.

I still think he has more talent than being just a crash ball merchant lets hope our Coach finally utilises this.

You can only play with so many pivots in your team though. Leeds currently have three, arguably four when Sutcliffe, McGuire, Burrow and Sinfield are on the field at the same time.

There's simply not scope to fit Ward into the team as anything other than a runner at this point in time. Unfortunate for him, but it's purely an accident of birth that he's come along at the time he has done.

If it takes Sinfield to play hooker to get him back tackling down the middle, rather than on the fringes, I'd take that.

The problem is that I get the feeling that Sinfield was taken out of the middle because he couldn't do it for 80 mins. I would think it unlikely that he would move back there for more than the odd game

I'm hoping that his first off season for a while will see Sinfield rejuvenated the way it did for Peacock.

For reasons that should be obvious to anyone, Sinfield needs to be in the team.However, pairing him with McGuire gives us a very ponderous half back pairing. I'd prefer to see Burrow at 7 but Sutcliffe also needs game time.

It's a conundrum but luckily we have the right coach to solve it.......

Oh, and I remain to be convinced that Ward should get his place in the 17 back, let alone be a first choice, even if his new meaty thighs have got a few posters juices flowing.