Webb;
BJB, Watkins, Hardaker, Hall;
Sinfield, McGuire;
Bailey, McShane / Hood, Peacock;
Ablett, Jones-Buchanan;
Clarkson.

Burrow, Griffin, Leuluai / Moore, Delaney.

I don't think Buderus wanted away from Leeds as such although he clearly wanted to take up an (unexpected?) opportunity when it arose in Newcastle.

Buderus said he appreciated the difficult position he was putting his employers in and that if a release was not possible he would honour his existing playing contract for 2012.

Do you think if Leeds had turned down the request the player would have given anything less than his usual 100% commitment?

Buderus was WORLD class, playing in the most important position in modern RL. Unfortunately we don't have a world class no.9 at the moment.

It wasn't that long ago he was a 'waste of money' for some, he was a huge part in our success last season.

Sinny to play 9 on friday for my money.

I'd go with:
Webb
BJB
Watkins
Hardaker
Hall
McGuire
Burrow
-----------
Griffin
Sinfield
Peacock
Jones Buchanan
Delaney
Ablett

Subs: McShane, Leuluai, Moore, Bailey
Maximum impact from the start, and big hitters from the bench, i think we should try Sinny at hooker because McShane for me isn't experienced enough to start and i think we need speed at half back.

I doubt he would have been the same player with Leeds as he will be with Newcastle - mentally I think he would have found the year at Leeds tough especially the training. I bet he is really up for the challenge at Newcastle

No doubt.

It doesn't detract from the fact that Leeds is a professional club not a charity. If it was considered McShane is not as good a prospect for 2012 as a half hearted, distracted Buderus then again I ask why let him go ? He did state he was ready to honour his contract.

Do you not consider it bad management in not finding an adequate replacement....or at least formulating a good enough contingency plan to compensate for his [i[ulong known[/u[/i departure ?? To be experimenting after all this time as to how to proceed is nothing short of a debacle. What was all the close season for ?

You can only sign what is available, maybe they thought he wasn't quite the loss he might turn out to be this is all conjecture maybe they were going to adapt the style of play to compensate?

Really ? You're telling me by starting Burrow as hooker (the apparent first contingency plan) they really thought Buderus wouldn't be quite the loss he might turn out to be ????

How exactly were they then thinking they might adapt the style of play to compensate by starting Burrow in this most important of all positions ?

I repeat it can only be described as bad management. How else can it be described ?

It was obvious Buderus would leave replacement acquired or not. What is also clear is that when it comes to signing players, the management of Leeds has an interesting definiton of "replacements"

There might be less of a stuff-up than some people are assuming. The season has only just started. Burrow by his own admission wants to start games (understandably). BM was probably looking at ways to improve things, and playing around with 9 at the start of the season is actually completely understandable given Buderus' departure. Putting Burrow in at starting hooker may not work, but if it doesn't it won't last - we'll see him off the bench again.

good luck for this weeks game. hope you don t lose by more than 50.


come on manly.

Leeds may as well list 16 players before kick-off on Friday night.

In 160 minutes of rugby one 'sub' has played little over 10 minutes between halfs.

Hmmmmm.

I'm very happy with my GF, but if Katy Perry confessed her undying love for me I think I'd be interested

People suggesting Sinfield to 9 need their heads looking at. Over the last 12 years or so everything Leeds have done has involved Sinfield being the central man controlling the game from 1st receiver. If Sinfield moves anywhere it should be back to 13, allowing him to defend in the middle.

If it were me I'd play McShane at 9 with Burrow on the bench though.

And if Katy Perry came seriously calling you might find it difficult living with the decision if you turned her down

Think most if not all agree Sinfield to LF and McShane given a chance as starting hooker.

The suggestions to move Sinfield to hooker are more a reflection of how everybody ? considers Burrow starting there such a crazy idea....and if McDermott has no faith in McShane it might be a better solution than using our super sub there.

It would also answer the being predictable criticism

My thoughts entirely considering Hood is out injured too.

Burrow playing at 9 was not the reason for our defeat at Wigan. He played the full 80 with high energy and was our most creative attacker. He (or McShane) will not replace Buderus with the same style of play and we will have to adapt to a different style whoever we now play at hooker.

With the reduced number of interchanges it is likely that not all bench players will be used for every game with coaches preferring to keep on the field their most effective 13. This will mean that the more mobile back row forwards with greater stamina like JJB & Ablett will become even more important than the less mobile props.

No one can argue with Burrow's ability to be " busy " ....but " creative " ??
He is totally dependent on ducking under or squeezing past a tackle. It can be devastating especially against TIRED forwards....but " creative " is stretching it somewhat.

No one can argue with Burrow's ability to be " busy " ....but " creative " ??
He is totally dependent on ducking under or squeezing past a tackle. It can be devastating especially against TIRED forwards....but " creative " is stretching it somewhat.

Nantwich Burrow has plenty of "assists" to his name and only look back to the GF for evidence of his creativity so to question this is way OOT and blind to what he can/has do/done to create trys.

I think putting McShane in on Friday could be a recipe for disaster seen as though Brian Mc hasn't shown any faith in him what so ever during the 2 games leading up to it.

He should of been given some game time on Saturday - Why has wasn't for me is confusing.

But who else have we got to play there at the moment?

Not at all .... I like Burrow's attitude, skill and devastating pace once he's broken the line. However, I stand by my contradiction to his purported "creativity" .... Burrow is entirely predictable but his abilities can still make effective outcomes. There is a difference.

Yes he is creative and has made a couple of try assists in the 2 games so far including a nice pass for our only try at Wigan. He was constantly trying to be creative and was possibly the greatest threat to a very good Wigan defence. I know they have very different styles but I am not sure quite what McShane could have added had he been on instead of Burrow.

So are you saying that McShane is more creative than Burrow?