But Cleary plays 7 rather than 9, so stands where I would expect a 7 to stand.

I agree with your second paragraph, the point that maybe I am not making clearly, is that I don't believe we can find that balance with this current group of players. Or when asking Burrow to do a whole game at 9. That is not to say it's impossible, in fact we have managed to hit that balance on the head with Burrow working alongside the likes of Diskin, Buderus, Lunt etc.

Again your last paragraph I mostly agree with, except for the bit about the hooker and the half, I do think you can get away with someone doing less tackling at hooker, but IMO it would be covered by the 13 or real workaholic forwards (JP, Gallen). I don't think we have that player in the ranks who fits the bill.

Brett Delaney fits the bill, the bloke would run his blood to water, if his body would allow him. Unfortunately I don't think his legs have got it in them anymore

Like it or not Burrow is contracted for next year and will be back up 9 probably for Segeyaro by looks. In a salary cap era can a team carry 3 top hookers? Do any other SL teams have 3 big name 9s? Maybe 2 and a kid but Hallas is being offered as a loanee next year so if that goes thru he wont be around.

I honestly think a fit Stevie Ward will tighten the middle defence up a hell of a lot next year fingers crossed the lad can stay fit along with Segeyaro.

Burrow is perfectly fine as an impact 9 hes done it successfully for plenty of years for us and despite the criticism on here he has never let Leeds down.

Rightly or wrongly can anyone see us signing another 9 if Segeyaro stays???

But you would sound a little stupid saying you dont want a creative player defending on the outside. Most teams hide creative players there.

Once again, and im not sure how you are still struggling with it, whether Burrow plays in the halves, or at 9, it makes no difference.

But its not necessary for a haf to need to be protected defensively. There are many 7's who can defend well.
Where you cover it from doesnt really matter. As i said earlier, i think regardless of hooker, we dont have the halves sorted.

Marty - what we need is someone else who can cover hooker. Properly. Whether that's Hallas or someone else doesn't bother me, but we need cover there. If Segeyaro gets injured I for one wouldn't put much faith in a team with Burrow playing long minutes as starting hooker. He's also beyond ordinary as a halfback. His value is off the bench against tired teams. If he no longer has the zip to create mayhem in that role then he shouldn't be in the 17, never mind long minutes.

Smokey - how can you argue that Burrow at 7 or 9 makes no difference? If he's at 7 he's virtually the same as any other weak defensive halfback, which most teams have and allow for. When he plays 9 without Sinfield we generally already have two small weak defenders on. That means one extra player to cover for. It can be done, but without someone as solid as Sinfield who is able to help the team maintain shape I just don't think it can work for any length of time.

Yes but they don't hide THREE creative players there do they.



That's nonsense, of course there's a difference. In his game alone he goes from jumping into dummy half maybe 5/10% of the game with the rest of the time at first/second receiver..... to being at DH 80% of the game......that's a major difference especially when his distribution isn't as crisp as the likes of other hookers. It also make a huge difference to teammates as most of them have to alter their game in defence.

No difference? Oh why because he's still goes on a mazy run? Nonsense. Burrow playing 7 or 9 and no difference is the biggest BS line trotted out by people who support him playing at hooker.

But surely Ellis playing at prop, but not carrying the ball in attack a the centres is a compromise. Who defends in the prop position around the ruck? where does the named centre defend?

I think the point Marty made, which i agree with, is that even if we go out and get a 'proper hooker' they arent likely to be any good. Like Falloon.


It has been done for 15 years with Burrow and Sinfield. Whether we put McGuire at Stand off, Burrow at Half and Sinfield at loose, or McGuire at half, Sinfield at Stand off and Burrow at Hooker, they played the same game.

As i said before, i wouldnt go McGuire, lilley, Burrow. But i dont think we can go with McGuire and Lilley anyway.

As you have been told, more times than should be necessary, you dont need to hide three creative players.
If Burrow is first receiver, who is distributing the ball to his team-mates? Ill give you a clue, guess what a first receiver does.

Its like you have never watched a game before and get all your opinions from only reading about it. There have always been hookers with different skillsets doing different things, different positives and different negatives. James Roby doesnt play the game the same as Cam smith, who is different from Josh Hodgson, who is different from Keiron Cunningham. The idea that a hooker must have x skills and do x job ignores the reality that to blend a team what one player needs to do is entirely dependent on what the rest of the team can do.

I was a vertically challenged half (still vertically challenged but no longer a half) and I loved defending. To the point that, depending on where we were on the field, I'd fall off the first tackle so people would run at me (my teammates knew so would cover). Anyway, my coach used to go mad with me, not for missing the tackle but for doing too much in defence. Why? Because it sapped my stamina in attack which is where I had to focus. Andrew John's says similar in his biography. So halves aren't necessarily put out wide because they're weak in defence, it's as much to save their energy.

They do all have different skill sets, but the one thing that they can all do at 9, which Burrow cannot is defend in the middle of the pitch. Can you name another player who will spend 80% of the game at dummy half but defend one in from the wing?

So you don't believe there are basic requirements of a player expected to play different postions? How many wingers do you see stick long term nowadays who can finish but can't deal with the high ball. That is not to say that all wingers are the same, or they are expected to do the same job, but you do have to have certain skills to be able to play that position long term.

Are you by any chance one of those people who think Leeds should move Ryan Hall into the second row.

Now we can hide Robbie, and have done successfully, as you say for years, but we no longer have the same players to be able to do this effectively, so are better going with a 9 who can defend in the middle (that's most of them) and Burrow coming off the bench. Imo, Burrow is better off when he can choose when to jump in at the PTB, rather than being handcuffed there all the time.

So where are you putting your two halfbacks in defence then if Burrow if defending out next to the left wing? As the poster above mentions, there's a very good reason why just about every coach in RL has their halves defend out wide even if they're a good tackler or not and that to save them for attack.



If you think passing from dummy half is the exact same as passing from first receiver then I'd suggest its you that hasn't ever watched a game before.

Very underrated skill the pass from the floor. On a similar note, I've been impressed by the amount of assists Segeyaro has managed since he's got here, his range of passing and craft, especially on the goal line, has been a real difference imo.

Burrow's distribution from dummy half is mediocre at best, and he can't tackle in the middle of the pitch.he is also a maverick who does his own thing a lot of the time, some would say runs up his own backside, which takes away any shape the team may have. all the hookers you mentioned Smokey, the proper ones, can at least tackle through the middle and distribute to a competent level no matter what other traits they bring to the table, Burrow can't, simple.

You know where Sinfield used to defend? There.

I think as much goes through the hooker as first receiver? Do you think passing from Dummy half is some super difficult and important skill? If so how did Falloon manage to have a 8 year career in the toughest league in the world doing it? Are we now pretending Segeyaro's passing from dummy half is wonderful? We ignoring the (4 is it now) forward passes. The pass on debut that win our own twenty that went to no-one?
if a hookers job is so prescriptive why did Daryl Clarke struggle in his first season at Wire? How did it take him so long to adjust to doing the same job?

If you were a running half, yes. If you werent....

No, I dont think Hall should play in the 2nd row. In fact the opposite, Im more than comfortable that he takes the ball in like a second rower. Years ago Hall would have been shoved in the pack because Wingers werent his build, wingers didnt take hit ups on the 1st, 2nd and 3rd carriers. That was a forwards job. That why people want to put him in the pack.

But we werent better with 'a 9' were we. We were far far poorer with 'a 9'. What we needed, and what we got, was a very very good player to replace what we lost in Sinfield. We got a very very good hooker. Which is brilliant. But you give us say Cherry-Evans instead, and we still see that uptick in form.

But he doesnt need to. There is no necessity for your hooker to bring any particular skill to the table other than what is lacking elsewhere.

Take Peter Wallace given as an example earlier, he is a halfback turned hooker and the point was made he is still expected to make 700 tackles a year. I accept that but my argument would be, if leeds bring in Peter Wallace, and put him in the halves does he suddenly forget how to tackle because there is a 6 or 7 on his back and not a 9? no of course not. Teams need to make about 350-400 takles per game, As long as you 350-400 tackles it doesnt matter where they come from.

Falloon played what 5 games? We were crap with Burrow as our week in week out 9. So much so that we had to go out and get a hooker. Not a halfback, a hooker. Yes he's a good player, but the impact Segeyaro has made is very much down to the position he plays, he's tightened middle defence up, and got the pack rolling forward.

To suggest he has replaced Kev is ludicrous, If that is the case why are we still clueless on the opposition line, and on the last tackle?

Now Cherry Evans would have improved us, and improved those areas, but our middle defense would still be crap and our forwards would struggle.

It is a necessity for a hooker to have good distribution from dummy half, not distribution in general (burrow is spotty at that too BTW) but from dummy half. If you ask any forward in any team in the world I would put money on them saying it's far easier to work of a hooker than it is someone who can fill in dummy half.

I just don't understand your first sentence, you seem to be admitting Robbie doesn't have the distribution skills at Dummy half, but saying that's fine if that is a skill someone else in the team has. Well if Burrow is at acting half all the time who and how are we filling that gap in the team?

If we take Segeyaro out of this team right now, we lose 30 ish tackles. Tackles that would be made in the middle of the pitch that have to be made up by the rest of the pack. All or starting forwards regularly make 30 plus tackles anyway, so where are the rest going to come from. You cant say a halfback, even one who can tackle because he doesn't stand in the middle of the pitch.

They have to be made by middle men, which increases stress in that area. Leading to more misses and even less control of the ruck. Surely you must understand that?

We're talking about the hooking role at Leeds. We have one specialist in the role (you know, a f*****g hooker), we need another. Rob Burrow could wear a mink coat, high heals and the number 69 on his back but his distribution from dummy half and his ability to run from that position without getting totally dominated would still be well below the standard required. But as long as he plays the role he has now, neither a proper half or a forward we will not have a balance to the team.
With Sinfield we had another player who could distribute and read the game from dummy half so when McD decided Burrow would be his bench option Burrow could come on and do his thing, picking his moment and defending wide (where I actually think he has been very, very good - it's where he should defend). But Kev is gone and our team is imbalanced and lacking quality in key areas. We need no other evidence than the evidence of his dummy half play this season, which has been desperately ordinary, leading to the club signing the guy this thread is named after. Now if Burrow was doing a good job then we didn't need Segeyaro or he'd be on the bench to spell Burrow. But that's not the case is it. That's not speculation, that's simple observable fact.

If there were good halves and good 9's available or coming through the academy then I would have shown Burrow the door. Thanked him for all he's contributed in a great career and replaced him with a good 7 and a backup 9. But there aren't any and we're stuck with an ageing Burrow who as my Mum would have said is "neither nowt nor summat" .

We were crap full stop

And again, our defence was that bad, we conceded only 99 points more than we did last year. Thats slightly over 4 points a game. We have scored 350 fewer points ove 15 points per game. Thats where our problem lay. We only conceded 40 points more than St Helens. But we didnt, go out and get a hooker because that solved our problem, we went and got a very good player who became available.

Now When i say Segeyaro replaced Sinfield i dont mean he is doing the job Sinfield did, I mean we lost a player from our creative spine and didnt really replace him. In fact, if anything, we lost another in Hardaker. Had we signed Cherry-Evans instead, our last tackle plays and creativity improve immeasurably, we score another 150-200 points and our defence performs as it did, we finish this season challenging the top 4.

I am unsure what relevance compariing points conceeed this year to a previous year has? most teams are crap this year, the attacking quality is abysmal. If points conceeded wasn't less I would see it has going back, but conceeding much more I see no excuses over.

One thing proven beyond doubt with this club this year, is just how important a role an out and out hooker is to a team. Relegation would have been our outcome without Segayaro's arrival.

Again, i can only point to what has actually happened. A team covering all three of lilley, McGuire and Burrow, over 23 rounds, conceded only 99points more than they did their treble winning year. This idea that three creative players, cannot be covered by the 13 over players in a squad just doesnt make sense ( i would also point out here that technically Burrow is a fantastic defender. Physicality is obviously a problem but he isnt a bad defender as such, probably better than McGuire or Lilley) Because defensively they have, and were.

But lets play your mental game. Take Segeyaro out of this team and lose 30 tackles. What do we do? Well you can move your centres inside. Kallum Watkins for instance has made nearly 600 tackles this year.

Now the criticism of this has been that this has taken away from Watkins offensive strengths, but its only 150 more than he made last year. A hundred more than Moon made last year. 130 more than he made in 2014 and 2013. Its only 50 more than moon made in 2013,

Lets go back a bit further and look at when we have had these great hookers defending the midde, 2004, Matt Diskin tops the tackle charts.2nd on that chart, Kevin Sinfield (playing primarily at standoff), 4th on that chart? Keith Senior, centre, 5th Danny Mcguire another half, 7th Chev Walker centre. 8th Rob Burrow. In a year we absolutely dominated, 4 of our top 8 tacklers were backs, plus Burrow. How can that be if certain players, playing in certain positions need to be the one to making those tackles?