I don't disagree that Reynolds would have also improved us, but pretty much everyone has been able to see our 2 biggest issues is hooker and halfback. Reynolds plays one of those positions.

But this has been my point, our problems are far deeper than not having a 'proper hooker' and our success last year was nothing to do with having a 'proper hooker', proper hooker, proper half, its all old thinking. Hell we lined up with Moon and Burrow in the halves last week.

Look at Catalans in 2009 who nearly stopped the three-peat with a halfback at hooker and ostensibly a second rower giving one of the all time great SL performances in the halves.

St Helens 2006 treble winning side had a hooker who could fill in at prop, a hooker who started his career as a half and a stand off who started his career as a winger. Their 2nd rower in that game started at standoff for them in the 2010 grand final/

Look at the Aussie world cup winning squad, you had Luke lewis who has played 9, 6, 7, 13, centre and wing, The final side had 2 stand-offs/fullbacks playing centre, and a full back on the wing, the stand-off was bombed out of Canterbury because he was 'too small' for the postion, the half back started
his career playing at loose, a second rower who was an SoO stand off, their loose forward was by any measure a prop

But all of those examples you give, those guys could fulfill the basic requirement of the position they were being asked to play, as well as in some cases offering my something different. Burrow cannot fulfill one of the basic requirements for a hooker which is to defend in the middle and do a forwards share of the tackling. It might be old fashioned but there's a reason most teams stick to the blueprint, because it works.

Oh dear. That hole is getting very big now.

Menzies played a fair old chunk of first grade at Manly at 6 too though, especially his last season before coming to the bulls

But it isnt a 'basic requirement' of being a hooker. There is no basic requirement of a hooker. The team that wins isnt the team that has the hooker who performs 30 tackles a game and gets to dummy half. There is nothing written in the rules of the game that says a hooker needs to make 30 tackles a game.

The best teams dont do what 'most teams' do. Thats why they are the best and most teams are most teams.

Menzies was at the Bulls in 2009. I was meaning Greg Bird. Who may have been wearing 13 that day (Centre Adam Mogg was named in the halves) but anyone who watched that game will have seen everything go through Bird

But it is though. Every single team follows this structure, sure they might differ slightly, for example Clark and Roby have more of a remit to run, Houghton is defense first and a lot pickier when to scoot. Every year in Nrl and Sl employ a hooker who can distribute and tackle.

Thats not to say that others don't do a decent job as fill ins, but to be able to be successful their for long periods they have to fulfill what is needed. Taking your example of Bird yes he's a back rower who has played a lot of halfback, including test and SoO. Can he defend out wide? Yes, can he organise and lead? Yes. Can he pass? Yes. So he can play six.

As for the best teams not sticking to the system I suggest you look back at the teams to have won SL or the Nrl over the last few years, with the exception of Leeds for the run in last year, I bet they all had a hooker who could at least defend in the middle of the pitch.

Thats not to say that some of these positional expectations haven't changed, especially recently. Props having to do more minutes and be able to pass is a good recent example. But the role of hooker hasn't really changed.

If you want an example look at Peter Wallace at Penrith, moved to 9 this year, but is still expected to defend in the middle and make 30 tackles. If he couldn't have done that I'd doubt he'd have stuck there. He doesn't get hidden out wide.

Like anything if we ignore the evidence against your hypothesis you will be proved right.

Positions evolve and change, there was a time when nearly all teams went with a ball playing loose forward. Yet Sinfield has been something of a novelty. Now most teams play an extra prop at 13. Does that mean we have lost a creative player? Well no because previously a Full back being an extra pivot was unheard of. A full back used to be a defensive position. Yet Zak Hardaker can barely pass a ball and was MoS when Leeds won the treble.

You're right, there's also nothing written to say a prop has to defend in the middle or that the FB has to drop back 30/40m behind the defensive line, so let's play Mitch Garbutt on the wing and Sutcliffe at left 2nd row when we are defending in the next game. 'Most teams' wouldn't do that and we don't want to be 'most teams' now.

Whilst we're at it why don't we play Galloway at right centre in attack and Watkins at prop in attack, after all Galloway is just a rugby league player who happens to play prop and Watkins is just a rugby league player who happens to play centre.

But Nathan Cleary does. Where as Leeds previously may have needed to hide Burrow, Sinfield was often our top tackler. We could have stuck a 9 on Sinfields back and had that 30 tackle a game hooker. But we would still have played exactly the same way.

With most players there are things you gain and things you lose. You dont dump peak Lauitiiti because he is a lazy defender. You surround him with great defenders like Ellis, like JJB, like Senior, and you cover for his deficiencies through other positions and other players. That is balance.

If you have a great defensive half, you dont need a great defensive hooker. If you have a great creative Fullback, you can go with a workhorse at loose. If you have great creative second rowers, you can go with a defensive minded centre, You can cover the work of bigger forwards if you have big hardworking backs

Of course we would never have outside backs playing at prop like Roy Asotasi, or Stand offs in the second row like Greg Bird or Steve Menzies, we would never see big 17st centres like Mal Meninga, You wouldnt see a 6ft 2" 18st winger would you. Apart from Manu Vatuvei. You never see a centre move to prop like Gareth Ellis, or a player like Luke Lewis play for Australia on the wing, in the centres, at loose and at 2nd row.

Sinfield at loose was a novelty? Don't talk daft. When he was playing there you had the likes of Paul Sculthorpe, Andy Farrell, Paul Cooke at top teams who were all more in the Sinfield bracket of being ball playing LF's rather than the 'let's stick a prop there to do a load of tackling' LF of today.



And Burrow doesn't have the skill set they have, which 95% of people would agree is more likely to bring the best out of your forwards in attack and defence. You even said yourself that our forwards dominated last year. Are you seriously going to say that was in spite of who was playing at hooker? Because that goes against all common sense or knowledge about Rugby League.

Yes and they are able to play those positions in both attack and defence. Gareth Ellis hasn't moved to play prop in attack but still defending as a centre. Players evolve and play different positions, what we're talking about with Burrow isn't evolving, it's comprising....sacrificing others to take up the void he leaves in defence. Ellis' newer role doesn't do that, Bird, Asotasi, Westwood...whoever you want to point out who has moved positions hasn't done that.

What I'm saying going by your "there's no written rule".....lets play Mitch Garbutt at prop in attack but on the wing in defence,

Ah yes, everyone remembers how out of place Sculthorpe was. Lil Paulie they used to call him on account of him only being 6'3. Andy Farrell too, tiny man. God knows how he made it in the pack at only 6'4 and 17stone. Played the game exactly the same as Sinfield he dd and would never get bumped up to prop just to get him in the side. Too small for the pack, too slow for the back, thats ol Faz. Paul Cooke was shorter than Burrow if memory serves me. All played the game the same as Sinfield.

Burrow doesnt need the skillset they have. As has been proven. For 15 years.

Jesus christ have you seen Manu Vatuvei defend? Have you seen Asotasi play? You think Ben Westwood still isnt running at outside backs? You think Greg Bird is playing the same role as Sam Thaiday?

Do you want to see a big 6'2, 16 and a half stone player who defends on the wing but is mostly used as a workhorse up the middle, taking hit ups on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd tackle like a prop?

Apologies haha, yeah totally agree about Bird real shame he couldnt get a visa for us saying that though thats the reason Wigan pulled the plug realising he wouldnt

Great player though Menzies. Prototypical second rower but could play centres and stand off.

Definitely Bradford made a massive boob letting him go to Catalans. Can see Stevie Ward form in a similar mould if all his injury troubles are behind him

No and I don't want a hooker who defends on the left wing, week in week out, which will make most of the team knacker themselves out picking up the slack in defence just because once in a blue moon one of his mazy runs from dummy half will come off, whereas most of the time he just gets squashed and dominated by a big forward.

Have you ever watched a game of RL? Burrow has never defended on the wing. I dont know if you have noticed but he is very short. That would cause problems from kick defence and whatnot.

You could play a player like Ryan Hall on the wing. He is very good at it. Takes a lot of first hit ups. Makes a lot of metres. Hasnt been scoring a whole heap of tries for a winger recently though.

Though i am amazed that this club has managed to carry a player to 7 grand finals, 3 lls, 3 wcc, 2 ccs, im not sure how they managed to carry him to 2 harry sunderland awards but it seems like great work. His once in a blue moon mazy runs that only resulted in 183 tries. It really is amazing how leeds have been so successful for so long having to carry him.

Just think how great it would have been if we had had proper hookers and proper halves and proper loose forwards all this time. We could have been a successful side like everyone else.

question Smokey, would you be comfortable with Burrow being Hooker for half or two thirds of the season from here were Segeyaro injured? do you think if that happened after having a 'proper hooker' again it wouldn't affect the team by having to pander to his needs again?

This is the major concern of many on here. You don't have to justify the benefits of Burrow, we are all aware of how great he can be, but that needs to be from the impact sub role only unless we are desperate for a game or two.

The honest answer is it depends on who we have in the halves. I wouldnt go McGuire, Lilley and Burrow no. Nor with Sutcliffe.

But, sad as it is, im not sure there is much left in McGuire, and i think Sutcliffe is doing well at FB, so i think we will need a half regardless.

He defends one in next to Ryan Hall on the left, you can argue about semantics if you want and say left wing, left edge, but it certainly isn't in the middle.



Again you're listing achievements mostly made in the halves with different playing personal at the club. The debate is about the 2017 season and having him play hooker then with the squad we have NOW.....him winning a Harry Sunderland award playing scrum half in 2007 has zero relevance to the debate.

No one has said we carried him when he played in the halves.
No one has said we carried him when he came off the bench to play an impact role.
No one has said he can't do a job there on occasions.

The argument is (one you're completely ignoring) is him STARTING at HOOKER, WEEK IN WEEK OUT in 2017.