But this is the point, Burrow doesnt suddenly start playing like Andrew Johns because you put a 7 on his back instead of a 9, just like Sinfield doesnt change from playing like Paul Gallen to playing like Thurston because he started wearing 6 instead of 13.

Burrow no more filled the traditional role of half back than he did Hooker, he had the same skills and they are used in the same way. Sinfield, McGuire and Sinfield have played together for nearly 15 years, their roles arent decided by the number on their back but by their skills.

Sinfield wasnt moved from 13 to 6 to start playing a different game, he was moved there to put another forward on the field and Burrow doesnt switch between hooker and half to start doing different things, but whether or not we need another creative player on the field.

Earlier in the season when we had Burrow, Aiton, Sutcliffe, McGuire and Sinfield fit, Aiton was at times, ostensibly moving to second row, previously Diskin was moving to 13. In the Challenge Cup final we had Cuthbertson listed as hooker. Was Burrow a replacement 9 or replacement 7 that day?

Burrow has always played a game which was part hooker part half, Sinfield has always played a game which was part 13 and part 6 and McGuire has interchanged between 6 and 7.

Aiton is a traditional hooker, with the skills of a traditional hooker, and some were seduced by that because they thought a 9 had to do certain things and that when we lost him we lost something important because we didnt have a traditional 9 and we didnt. Because we dont need one. We dont need a traditional 9, a traditional 6 or a traditional 7 because we have 3 special players, with unique skills who can between them fulfil the 3 (and sometimes 4) roles between them.

Keep going. It's great watching you make a t*t of yourself and then say "no, no, no that wasn't the point"

Only a few pages back you said


"He has done so well covering that it had been his position for years and he was won 2 Harry Sunderlands and a Lance Todd there.

Burrow is a fantastic hooker and had been for years. He was fantastic in the run in and had been great for months coming up to that."

So is Burrow a fantastic hooker or is his role not determined by the number on his back as he plays the same way? Get the shovel out lad and keep digging.

I havent, at any stage said 'that wasnt the point'. Youre going to have to try harder, the substantive point is still there.

Hey why dont you try throwing out some bigotry. It worked last time for you.

Burrow is a fantastic hooker whose role isnt determined by the number on his back. Why did you think those things were mutually exclusive?

To think Burrow has to do job a, b or c because of the number on his back or what position he is listed on simply betrays a lack of knowledge of how the game is actually played.

Says the guy who thinks Burrow circa 2015 is doing the same thing as Burrow circa 2007.

And if he's stepping into dummy half for the majority of the match (something he wasn't doing in 2007) then yes he does have to do certain things and his role is different. Defensively he can't do what a hooker does which means others have to sacrifice for him. As good as Burrow played on Saturday we really could've done with Aiton at times in defence, especially that opening 20 of the 2nd half when the middle defence looked shot to pieces.

Burrow has many qualities, but to downplay the role of Aiton or a proper hooker shows you to be the one displaying gross lack of knowledge of the game.

Kylie often steps into dummy half when we are close to the line because it gives the team more options, Cuthbertson also takes on that role. Neither are hookers. Sinfield stepped in to dummy half quite often because it allows us two running options and allows us to run plays with forwards offloading to Burrow. McGuire often steps in to dummy half on the last to give us multiple kicking options but sometimes Sinfield does so to kick direct from dummy half, sometimes Burrow stays there and McGuire kicks, almost universally on the first and second tackles a three quarter will take the ball up from dummy half. Or as Brian puts it [iOf the hooker role, McDermott said: “Kev will go in there at times. Rob will feature both at nine and in the halves during the game.[/i

defensively he cant do what a hooker does, but he doesnt have to because as was proven a hooker doesnt need to do those things. Someone else can.

Wigan played a traditional hooker, that traditional hooker made 30 tackles to Burrows 7. That traditional hooker also made less than half the yards Burrow did, didnt bust a tackle compared to Burrow's 4, gave away an important penalty doing what a traditional hooker does (because he was stepped by guess who?) and finished on the losing side. Rob Burrow didnt need to make 30 tackles when Kevin Sinfield can make 31. McIlorum has to make 30 tackles because Matty Smith is only making 13.

The best side isnt the one with the best player in each position, its the best blend of skills, and Burrow's are unique and it doesnt matter if he is playing 9 or 7 or his usual mix of both, you have him running on the back of a quick play the ball, you have him playing off-offloads, you have him making darting runs from first receiver, you have him dragging the defensive line across, you have him worrying the big men, you have him running around the middle and pulling the middle defense in creating space outwide. Replace him with anyone and you lose what he offers, what Aiton offers can be made up elsewhere, and was. The idea Burrow has ever been picked to do anything other than those things, or that those things arent a bigger contribution than 30 tackles and passing out of dummy half is ludicrous.

Sorry I stopped reading at "Kylie often steps into dummy half".....that might be the most daftest thing you've said and that's saying something.

Kylie often steps into dummy half?! Does he?!

in the circumstances I described yes. Its a common play to have a big man pass from dummy half on certain plays. Watch for it next year, Cuthbertson will do it pretty often. Im not saying it happens every set, but a couple of times a game there are plays we will run where a prop or JJB will pass it out from dummy half. I always remembered when Kylie did it because his passing was pretty good and it surprised me.

thats probably why you misunderstood. It helps people, especially ones who have issues such as yours, to read entire sentences.

No I just don't write ridiclous bat sh*t claims such as Kylie often steps in dummy half which nobody on here would agree with.

And nobody made that claim. Somebody did say there were certain plays where a big man would step in to dummy half and often that was kylie, and a moron misunderstood because he was too stupid to finish a sentence (psst, that somebody was me and that moron is you).

Just by virtue of being able to use a computer i thought you would have understood that if in a certain circumstance something often happens, it doesnt mean that thing itself is a common occurrence. That seems a pretty simple concept to me. It doesnt seem difficult.

Like i could say that when a person is struck by lightening they often die, but i thought people would understand that was different to saying people often die by being struck by lightening. Perhaps i gave you too much credit to begin with, Have i sufficiently explained this fairly basic concept for you?

But hey, congratulations on another attempt to distract from the substantive point and on to a minor detail!

Ermmm.....



Seems you did make that claim......then proceeded to ramble on about lightening striking in an attempt to divert away from your stupid claim.

You do realise that when you pretend to not understand things like this its not the other person who you make look silly right? Its not a difficult concept and most people would have understood the first time and those who didnt would certainly have done when it was clarified. Continuing this charade only makes you look silly and/or that you are trying to knit fog about an minor detail because you cannot address the substantive point.

Shovel away lad, shovel away. The hole is getting bigger.

In this particular d!ck measuring contest the biggest chopper has to go to printer with smokey packing a maggot.

From reading all you are doing is making inaccurate claims, when printer picks you up on them you try and wriggle out.

I, nor i am sure anybody else is interested in this anymore. You can give yourself a win. There was a debate to be had there doesnt seem to be anymore.

Is anybody actually reading this personal duel between the dual pedants smokey and printer?

Fine, but they arent really the issue that was being debated or needed to be and is entirely separate to the debate which was going on.

I was wrong about some of the Burrows awards (and i forgot one of Sir Kevs many accolades) but they were separate to the debate that was happening about the relative merits of Aiton and Burrow and the place a 'proper hooker' in the modern game. Which i thought was far more interesting.

at most one person, and to be honest i doubt even that.

While I think Burrow has had a good year particularly the back end, my main issue is you have to hide an extra half back when defending. While I take your point someone else can and does do that side of the game, that person has been Watkins getting through a lot of defence In particular the last 3 games of the year. It worked out fine we won, I just wonder if that's the right call potentially blunting Watkins attacking game

Nope, life is too short

...and that succintly Ferdy is the point. Burrow IS a great player BUT when he plays hooker (very effectively in his attacking progress) somebody else must take up the tackling stint to the long term detriment to that individual. The amount of tackles Watkins has been doing is not a good solution long term.

Burrow awards were separate to the argument, but when we tried discussing it properly you went all "but but but Burrow has won X, Y and Z awards"......considering you brought what awards Burrow has won into the argument to try back up his performances it's very shaky ground to then criticise the introduction of them.

My first post on this was to say Watkins doing the amount of tackles was not a long term solution.......however Burrow being awarded a dreamt up Lance Todd trophy award trumped all that apparently.