Sinfield plays 6 in every game he plays - the difference is when he has only one option either Burrow or McGuire he can cope with more than that he struggles

Possible you're right, I thoguht at the time of posting that he isn't big or fast enough but he is a good ball handler and relatively good organiser. Like Lauiti'iti connects the left side to the centre of the park, diskin could do the same but instead of diagonal runs like Ali does he could be employed out there all the time rather than centre of the park. I believe it would confuse the opposite wing man and centre, sucking them in to create over laps. Saying this using him of the right would likely be useles due to our style atm.

Not sure that is quite right Disa - who captained the side in the CC semi v Huddersfield - he only missed one game last year the home win against Castleford - we lost 7/8 games last season with him on the field so the facts do not support your opinion neither does idea that Sinfield controls the attack - watch the games back again.

It's never going to happen.

you are obsessed & so very wrong

it is all in your head, thank the lord you are nowhere near coaching the team and all we have to do is chuckle at your bizarre repetitive rambings on the web

You'd ''consider letting him go'' eh?

Thankfully you're not the coach.

although the aussie haven't used many "overseas" cricketers keppler vessels (former south africa captain) played test cricket for them. on topic i though sinfield created more without having to do his usual defencive stint which allowed our backs some real quality ball and mcguire was a great foil to the good work his forwards were doing

What do people think about binning Diskin and using Burrow as an impact hooker until McShane is ready?

Buderus/Burrow would, imo, be more inline with the '2 hooker' system others use (Cunningham/Roby being the obvious one).

Would line us up as;

1 Webb
6 Sinfield
7 McGuire
9 Buderus
13 Ablett

Sub Burrow

What would people make of that?

I think it'd be more of what the international SH thought about sitting on the bench and then playing at 9 when used

It was just a question to see what people thought, i wouldnt do it personally, i'd stick to burrow at 7, mcguire at 6 and sinfield at 13 with diskin and buderus switching between 9.

the 6 7 13 combo has worked for us in the last 2 gf's

If there HAS to be a choice between McGuire and Burrow then at the moment it has to be McGuire. IMO his all round game is more versatile than Burrow, particularly in terms of his passing game and his uncanny ability as a poacher.

Burrow offers that x-factor in being able to break the line that McGuire does not possess (although his footwork is as good), but too often this season his darting runs have resulted in him getting ko'd and putting the team at a disadvantage.

That said I'm not convinced that Sinfield is a serious long term option at stand-off. I think it is good for Leeds to be able to mix things up every now and then (as with Wilkin at Saints in the same position), but IMO Leeds are at their best with all three of Sinfield, McGuire and Burrow on the field, as they all offer something different in a complementary fashion. Losing Burrow or McGuire from the team long term would make us more predictable and less competitive.

I can't believe all the talk on here about breaking up the creative triagngle which has seen us win back to back titles, after a couple of above average performances in an otherwise poor season.

Personally I don't think we work well with 2 hookers. We were poor in 2005 when Diskin came back, and he shared with Dunemann, and we were also poor in 2006 when we had Millard and Diskin hooking.

There are more problems in the team, than our Burrow, McGuire, Sinfield triagnle. Anyone who wants to change that sucessful formula needs their heads checking

how much impact does Burrow have on his own nowadays?

You are entitled to your opinion - please demonstrate along with Disa the last time a Leeds side capitulated that did not include Sinfield?

As has been pointed out, it's hard to break up that creative triangle. However, this strategy also beefs up the pack significantly IMO, as I've mentioned on another thread. Burrow could come on at 7 after half an hour, with Ablett going off and Sinny moving to 13. This would then allow Ablett to be used as an interchange second rower. If Buderus were to get injured, Burrow jumps in at 9, and shares it with Sinny and McGuire.

How many games has Sinfield missed? Maybe it was Seniors fault.

6, 7 and 13 (in Leeds' case) should be given their job and left to get on with it, IMO. Planning on changing scrum halves mid game and altering defensive patterns to suit when Burrow comes on are just too radical a concept for me.

Not that it helps any (but I did the leg work yesterday for the Keith Senior stats)

Leeds' W/D/L record with:

Danny McGuire - Pl 203, W 143, D 6, L 54, 71.9%

Kevin Sinfield - Pl 320, W 219, D 7, L 94, 69.5%

Rob Burrow - Pl 255, W 173, D 7, L 75, 69.2%

why?

it is of no relevance whatsoever, other than in your mind as you attempt to justify the bizarre position you consistently take to bin off leeds most successful captain ever and the player who above all others has been the foundation of that success

most leeds fans understand and appreciate that, a minority of clowns cannot, but you are in a separate minority of 1 as you clearly understand the game but seem to have a "mcguire" induced blind spot on sinfield

I had the same argument with him on the 'thats better thread'.
Take a deep breath and smile

Because you were responding to a post that stated that everytime Leeds play without Sinfield they capitulate - I simply suggested that is simply not proven by the facts - you are saying I am an idiot and I don't know what I am talking about - all I am saying is prove your point - but we both know you cannot - the rest is semantics your view/Disa against mine - end of.

That is not the point - Disa is saying Leeds capitulate when Sinfield doesn't play - I am simply suggesting that is not bourne out by the facts

Besides which the stats suggest that Leeds win more of the games (in percentage terms) when McGuire plays than when either Burrow or Sinfield do. QED. (I've always wanted to use that and now seems as irrelevant a time as any.)

nah

you're malfunctioning, or deliberately fog knitting, although i tagged it onto your disa reply so i suppose thats where you latched onto it ... i couldn't care less about that as it doesn't help either argument

funny you should say I think you are an idiot, I didn't say that did I

for clarity then, it's your entrenched view that sinfield controls play to such an extent that burrow & mcguire cannot that is wrong. mcguire barely plays like a true stand off in that respect, its the biggest flaw in his game, he is capable of it (tuesday went very well for him as a playmaker) but his natural instinct is to run with the ball not pass it and he ends up disappearing up his own ar$e

as mcguire gets older (and slower and less mobile) its vital for him and leeds that he changes his game to that of playmaker first and foremost, and thats nothing to do with sinfield

even stranger is the assertion that "Sinfield is too slow both physically and mentally to play the playmaker - but sadly he will be in that position until he retires."

the only evidence you need there is 3 championships in 4 years with the captain/playmaker calling the shots and undoubtably being first name on the teamsheet under both coaches during that time

end of - as well - lol

had to have one more go ...thats it now .... breathe, and smile

You couldn't fit a cig paper between those stats and it doesn't take into account the rest of the Leeds team or the opposition.