Times have changed, and why Burrow is no longer suited to the modern game.

Personally don't like the changes with the 13's, preferred the old ball handlers. But for now I actually think it will be Mullally who might claim that 13 spot for us. From what I hear, he has exceeded expectations at the club, and coaches and players alike are very impressed with him.

Maybe Mullally might get a run on Sunday?

I think Burrow can still have an impact in the modern game but off the bench. I still think there's a place for him but it means you can't put another ball player at 13. We can't go with, for instance:
6. McGuire
7. Lilley

9. Burrow

13. Sutcliffe

There's just too many light defenders in there to cover.
If people want Sutcliffe at 13 then you've got to have a strong defender at hooker. Even then it's still a stretch at times to cover 3 players when most teams are only covering 2.
I'm 100% for attacking, skillful, passing/offloading rugby. But that has to be balanced with enough attacking and defensive grunt, or all that skill won't get used. I think some people forget that our pack was fantastic last season and it was having that fantastic pack that enabled the likes of McGuire, Moon, Watkins, Hardaker etc to show their skill. I think people are focussing on the loss of Sinfield, whereas I think the combined loss of Leuluai and Peacock will be just as big.


I agree, I also preferred having another ball player at 13 but I suppose that role has been taken by the full back now instead leaving 13 free to be either a workhorse or a battering ram.
I've heard the same re Mullally. His attitude seems to be good from what I've heard.

He is apparently.

I think it's easy to underestimate the amount of chopping and changing that has gone on already at Leeds in terms of defensive structure on the edges this season.

While the wingers and centres haven't changed, the shuffling around of half-backs, hookers and second rows both between games and notably last weekend within the game due to injury must be making it hard to build up a cohesive defensive unit.The run at the back end of last season had pretty much a settled structure on both sides of the field, which has gone out of the window with the loss of Ward, the recruitment of Ferres, the return of Sutcliffe and Lilley seeing more game time.

I would agree with you regarding Burrow and don't see Sutty as 13 in the modern game. However not sure yet that he is the ideal 6 either, so he remains a work in progress with great potential and could well end up in the centres. I also want to see open attractive rugby which means the creative playmakers taking risks so we have to allow youngsters who are selected to fill these roles the time to learn their trade at the highest level.

I also like the look of Mullally who could prove to be an astute signing and potentially our other forward recruits look good and capable of an offload game but they have yet to hit form as a unit. To date ZH has not shown he is a ball player and has not yet shown he can fill our need for a linking FB although Golding looks to have these skills.

Hardaker back to the wing for you then?

.....in place of?



I agree Sutcliffe (and prob Ward....and Ablett, who I still think is best at LF) no longer fulfill the 'modern' requirements of a LF. The 3rd prop role is much better fulfilled by Delaney, Singleton or Cuthbertson (or Mullaley?)

Can't see Sutcliffe making a good centre !!!

To fit in Golding, I think we both agree he could easily be moulded into a quality Half Back - something I see is beyond Zak. His (Zak's) defensive capabilities still make him a quality FB, but I can see he does seem beyond any improvement on linking in attack. Overall he still commands the FB spot for me though.

Agree with this, add into mix Galloway has played only 2 games in middle, garbutt a handful and no hooker ...

I agree with all of this although personally I think it's the combined loss of Sinfield and Peacock that is the biggest factor, tbh Leuluai was only a bit player last season albeit an effective one.
Hardaker shows time after time that he is not a ball player, great defensively and tries a little too hard on attack. Some of his line busts are brilliant but far too many see him running into the big men and losing possession. Once he gets this under control then he will be one of, if not the best FB in the country

No I am not saying Hardaker to the wing as Golding's introduction should be gradual and not rushed but he does show more creative class and as you say could play in the halves.. Who knows Zak may develop into a good attacking player.

Sutcliffe has the size for centre and has a running game. Again he should be allowed some time to see which position suits the team best,

Does Sutcliffe have enough pace to be a decent centre?

I'm totally bemused that fans still say stuff like Hardaker just isn't a ball player.........

Our best creative player was "just a support player". With no real passing and/or kicking games. He also couldn't defend.

Hardaker IMO has about another 4 years to develop as passing game (by all accounts he has a pretty good kicking game) then he will have about 6 seasons as a stand off or ball playing fullback.

are people really arguing that Burrow hasnt got a place a 'anymore' two games in to the season after he was an absolutely integral part of a treble winning season.

I dont know how much more conclusively people can be proven wrong, and still put forward the same trite argument. We have had 12 unbelievably successful years with Burrow in the defensive line. Its pretty obvious that whatever frailties are there can be covered.

Perhaps burrow needs to be first man in history to win 3 Harry Sunderland trophies as 2 MOM and 7 championship medals are bit run of mill. Alan Tait, Andy Farrell, Sir Kev and Burrow have 2 each. Not bad company to be in. he gets exposed a bit when we can't play a proper a hooker for any part of game. Answer is play a hooker and have burrow in the team.

Leeds knew Warrington had done a deal though and we're trying to work with them to get Clark to come to Headingley instead, they weren't blindly just talking to Cas oblivious to Warrington's involvement.

We have Watkins and moon at centre we don't need to try and play Sutcliffe there and confuse the kid even more or play him at hooker

It is only really Gotcha who is saying Burrow has no place anymore and he's been waiting to scapegoat Burrow and McGuire in 2016. Even those of us who aren't keen on him starting at hooker are quite happy with him coming off the bench.

Add in Handley coming through and being a potential centre in time. Depends on if Watkins gets lured away to RU and what Moon's plans are regarding staying in England or eventually returning to Australia someday.

I agree about him not playing centre as his vision and creativity would be somewhat wasted imo
Hooker I think is a better option in the future, he is big enough for the defensive work and if Lilly and Golding emerge as quality halves then that could be the solution a couple of years away- don't forget that Cameron Smith played his first season at 7
However for this season we should play him at 6 as he and Mcguire combined really well last year and at 19 it would be a bit silly to put unnecessary pressure on Lilly who should start playing more often off the bench and start when Mcguire or Sutcliffe are injured

I see different season, and still making things up?

I haven't said that. We were talking about starting 13, and Him but a clear point down. The way the game has changed there is not a place for Burrow in a starting 13. He is neither a good enough scrum half or a good enough hooker. Impact from the bench however, is something completely different. Just read, it is easy enough.

Funniest post ever however is Smokeys. He lambasted a player who was integral to our success last season, yet believes Burrow was.

I am not suggesting we replace who I regard as the best two centres in SL. Simply suggesting that Sutcliffe does not look comfortable or a natural game manager at 6 and perhaps not forceful enough as a 13. IMO his present skill set is possibly best suited as a centre where he may well end up be it due to injuries or transfers.

I do think there is an element of truth in what Printer is saying - I do think you have a bee in your bonnet about McGuire being captain and why your preferred candidate has been overlooked.

On Burrow - I thought he and McGuire had a much greater influence on the outcomes at the back end of the season than either Sinfield or Peacock.

Well you would wouldn't you, considering the comment is about your love child. However this wasn't about McGuire, who yes I think the club have made a massive error in making captain, but of course have always maintained his position in the side. And contrary to what you are alluding to I have voiced no preferred candidate, and would just have liked the club to have followed the principle of Sinfield, young, growing with team, and set right example. If I am honest, the best fit is Ward, but he is out injured anyway at present.




That's just laughable that. They still didn't organise and manage the team to the success it had, they played off the back of that. That's not influence that is opportunism, and good luck to them for that.

I am not disagreeing with your rationale, I think Ward will make a great captain - but most on here no what's coming - if Sinfield had been on the field this would happened, McGuire's not a leader etc.

McGuire had a lot of influence on what happened on the field as did Burrow to suggest they didn't is really laughable. McGuire orchestrated many of the important plays that made the difference between success and failure of the season. That is not opportunism that's game strategy - you only have to listen to his comments about the play at Huddersfield!!

Youve said the club made a massive error in appointing mcguire as captain but have offered no viable alternative? JJB and Stevie ward weren't viable due to their long term injuries, so I see It as the club have chosen the next person who has been a major part of the successful last decade and hope that he can transition those values to the 'new squad'. To argue the point you make you must at least have a realistic alternative.