You seem to have this balance thing all confused. We balanced Burrow's lack of defence whether he played 9 or in the halves, because when Burrow played 9 we played an extra forward and moved Sinfield to half. When Burrow played half we played Sinfield at loose, losing a forward.

Other players didnt need to make extra tackles when Burrow played 9 instead of half. It didnt make a difference. We had Sinfield, Burrow and McGuire on the pitch. When we lost defence at 9 we gained at 13, when we gained it at 9 we lost it at 13. This idea that a hooker needs to make these tackles is just wrong.

Yes, that you think we need a 'proper hooker'. We dont. Our improper hooker can and will do things that proper hookers can't and won't. Those things are usually the best things. The things that make you sit up and take notice, the things you remember.

Sinfield has gone now, we don't have that workhorse at 6 anymore those days are gone.

Also, i don't want my halfs doing 30/40 plus tackles a game i want them fresh and running the game not gassed.

Name me another team that has the hooker doing only a few tackles a game and hiding him on the fringes, because i can't think of one.

And AGAIN, i appreciate that. Burrow still has a role in the team like i have said, for the very reasons you marked out above. Impact sub suits him down to a tee now and may also prolong his career.

I'd see it more as a very experienced team managed to adapt very well at the back end of last year. But they looked absolutely gassed by the time of the GF, and I doubt very much that they could have done as well last year had we only had Burrow all year. I've rewatched the GF a few times and Watkins, who takes a lot of stick when he's not attacking well was absolutely immense. He was often covering 30 yards of the field on his own and having to make calls about whether to come in or stay out. He got it right almost every time. In fact one of the few times he was defending a bit wider was when Sinfield got skinned for Wigan's first try. Watkins' role was massively underrated, but he couldn't and shouldn't be expected to put in a shift like that every week.

Burrow's an impact player. If he doen't add impact he isn't worth a spot in the 17, never mind the starting lineup. He's a poor halfback and a very average starting hooker. Add in the issues with the defensive reorganisation and you have a problem over a season. That's why I'd be very keen for us to have a genuine alternative starting hooker even if Segeyaro stays.

what people are missing regards aiton. is while he may not be the best hooker ever, he suited our game perfectly. for me, whatever people dress stats up to say, we missed him massively when he got his injury

But the one example you made was from way back in 2011 at the GF with his try, which should be pointed out he scored from first receiver with Buderus playing the ball from dummy half.

What's wrong is what you've posted above. Back when Sinfield played loose (not since 2010) teams actually played a ball player there, since then teams have just started putting an extra big guy there so no we didn't have to cover up having Sinfield in defence who was often our top tackler playing there and didn't mean others from the centres inwards had to increase their numbers.

The idea that a hooker has to make you a load of tackles comes from the fact every team uses their hooker this way. Maybe Saints, Wire and Hull should start hiding Roby, Clark and Houghton out on the wing and save them for attack and see how things go, I doubt it would improve the team.

Maybe just maybe, the traditional players in traditional roles doesn't help teams win. How many grand final wins have those three hookers got between them?

To be honest, the debate shouldn't be about the past, it should be about how Leeds go forward. There seems to be two opinions assuming Segeyaro stays, either go with burrow as back up or go with a proper hooker as back up. I don't think you can have both in the squad, and certainly not in the match day 17, unless the backup hooker is an academy player.

I think you're just trolling now.

Why did we go out and get Segayaro then, why have our performances improved so much with him in the team.

Whether the 40 plus tackles need to be made by a hooker isn't the point, they need to be made. Bearing in mind for large parts of last year we also played with JJB, Singo, etc at 13 making 30 tackles and Aition making 30 plus tackles. This year with burrow at 9 and JJB at loose there's still 30 tackles missing.

As others have said we can get by but it means essentially rendering Watkins useless.

A hooker is essential and Mac and GH have admitted as much twice this year by scraping the barell with Falloon and then chasing hard for Chicko when that didn't work.

It's a team game, you need a good team. The argument I made was that probably the most important player in that team in the game today is the guy playing dummy half. I didn't say that a good 9 can win you every game on his own. Personally I think it's wrong not to have two specialised players at the club in that position. Not having one on the books at all is bat%hit crazy and our coach and CEO know that, hence the desperate signing of Falloon and the possibly temporary signing of Segeyaro.
But I agree, I said it as well, that's not possible to have two with Burrow at the club.

My opinion is that you need a good distributor at hooker, who can preferably tackle. Hopefully Segayaro stays and then the decision is made as to whether it is a backup hooker or burrow on the bench.

The most pertinent point at the moment, and I'm basing my view on the Sky live games and highlights, is whether the poor performances throughout the team have been a symptom of not having a proper hooker or whether there is a greater issue with players and coach that need resolving.

The hooker cannot be blamed for silly penalties
The hooker cannot be blamed for poor ball retention
The hooker cannot be blamed for a lack of proper kicking game
The hooker can partially be blamed for lack of attacking plays but others must take responsibility
The hooker can partially be blamed for not making enough tackles and causing confusion in the defensive line, but cannot be blamed for a lot of the half d attempts at tackles that have been seen so often this year.

If McDermott is still here, then this will be a defining year for him and a lot of the players. There will be a full preseason for the non internationals with the season finishing in September, there will probably not be too many international players given this years performances. I can only see there being
Watkins, Hall and possibly Ferres in the squad, everyone else will have a good rest. Decisions need to be made on a number of players and coach and unfortunately I cannot see those decisions being made this off season. I still believe there are good players in there but they need to step up to the mark and I am not convinced that a lot of them have shown that they are willing to do that, even if I think they are capable.

I get where your coming from if glad, there are many things that have happened this year that our not just down to not having a 9.

Having said that on attack everything starts with the hooker, he touches the ball pretty much every play, and if service from there is poor it's a trickle down effect to everyone in the team.

I also think the effect on defence has looked worse this year because of the blueprint of Massive forwards we have gone for this year, we've really struggled against lateral movement in the middle third. Something a hooker for most of the year. I bet even 37 year old Peacock was (is) more mobile than Mullaly.

I agree though that all this does not excuse players from stepping up, merely that it would be stupid for us to go into next season with the same issue and as a result, the same excuse.

And?

Teams havent only just started putting a big man at loose. This isnt a recent phenomenon. Sinfield, as a ball playing loose, has always been something of a novelty. His whole career people have argued he was too small to be a 'proper loose'

Roby, Clarke and Houghton dont have the skills Burrow does.

Because Segeyaro is a fantastic player.

Falloon was a proper hooker, one who had made a career as an NRL 'proper hooker'. Didnt work did it.

Did he? he didnt really stand out in 2014. Never really made it in the NRL, never really stood out at Wakefield, and hasnt set the world alight at Les Catalans.

Aiton is a 'proper hooker' People have drawn a line from our success to him when in fact it was the other way around. Aiton didnt make the team better, the team made him look like a world beater. Anyone can look like a great 9 playing behind an utterly dominant pack that was offloading for fun, and inside great strike players.

It wasnt difficult to look like a great 9 in that side, we know this because when we lost Aiton, we didnt miss a beat, our 3 fixtures after losing Aiton were
Leeds Rhinos 25 - 18 Wigan Warriors
Hull FC 22 - 36 Leeds Rhinos
Hull KR 0 - 50 Leeds Rhinos

Our defence hasnt been that bad this year. We have only conceded 99 points more than last year. And we conceded 144 points in just three games. By and large our defence has been 'acceptable'.

Our issue has been creative. We have made metres without a problem, but we havent been creating gaps, our passing has often been atrocious, and our last tackle plays have been terrible.

Must tackle. Otherwise I don't disagree. Never suggested our season's performance was crap entirely due to the lack of quality at 9. I think I've commented enough on other reasons.
We look better with Segeyaro, but we still look poor. Plenty of other reasons for that.

Our defence has been shocking mainly around the ruck ,the right channel & rspecially under our sticks.
99pts more is 99pts too many when yer losing week in week out & miss finishing in the bottom 2 by the skin if yer teeth.

Segeyaro is a good "hooker", Falloon was a crap hooker. You see the difference don't you? Don't try to imply Segeyaro is s good player who happens to be playing 9 for us. He's a hooker and a good one.

Im not arguing that our defence was good. But it wasnt the reason we lost most games. Most games we lost because we didnt score enough, not because we conceded too much.

Segeyaro is a quality player who happens to be a hooker.

You can believe we wouldnt have seen the same uptick in form if instead of bringing in Segeyaro we had brought in say Adam Reynolds if you want, but id hugely disagree.

Segayaro is a fantastic hooker, are you suggesting if we'd have signed him and played him at 6 or 1 he'd have the same impact? You measure the quality of the player based on their position. JT is the best in the world but would be a crap prop forward.

Falloon was a proper hooker, but a crap one. The fact we signed him shows the club think it's important to have a 9, that's the point I'm making. In fact a couple of our wins before Chicko got here Falloon played and while he was crap, we as a team looked better.