Hookers are just big half backs these days (Lowes for example) , not like a David Ward who was a prop who could pass. I like the idea of a back on the bench to make things happen, but these days you have Burrow (likem last year) and now Hood who fit that bill.

No doubt but that wasn't the point I was addressing where Juan appeared to be suggesting that in addition to the versatile hooker option (McShane or Hood or even Burrow in that guise) he felt the coach might like to have a 'back' option available. Indeed he went on to state the coach 'should always have this option.'

My feeling with only ten interchanges allowed there would be no room for such a luxury.

I agree TVOC and the versatillity of our BR's should make this a non starter aswell imo.

True but would have been handy at Wigan!

No you are mistaken. I was pointing out clearly that if both hookers are picked along with Burrow at 7, as nantwich and others were proposing, and assuming they pick 4 props then the coach would have only one bench place left to choose between Clarkson, Hauraki, Pitts or Smith or any other back. Therefore choosing both McShane and Hood + Burrow at 7 would limit the coaches options too much.

I was agreeing with you in a flowery type of way.

Smith as a stand-in hooker perhaps but not as a spare back. Selecting a back (any back) in that situation would limit the options still further.

Perhaps you could highlight those occassions when Leeds have used a back (any back) in this way on a bench that also comprised a half-back/hooker type and two props by design rather than out of a injury-ravaged neccesity.

I'd imagine they are very much in the minority.

Coaches do not want to limit their options and usually make their choices based on the best set of players they think should win them the game. If that set of players includes several outstanding backs with game changing skills who cannot all make the start or to if the coach wishes to give big match experience to a promising young back then of course a back can be selected on the bench. St Helens used Eastmond in this way.

Last season Watkins, McGuire, Smith and Burrow were all used on the bench and it was the impact of Burrow off the bench that was one of the most important reasons for our success last year. Because Burrow was able to sometimes allow Buderus to have a rest does not alter the fact that last year Burrow came on primarily as a back with Sinfield reverting to 13 and it was this tactic that proved so successfull. Perhaps it is only cup winning coaches that can appreciate this.

When people talk about a back, they tend to mean one of the threequarters. What TVOC is saying is that its unlikely that a coach would select a threequarter on the bench as well as a halfback/hooker, thereby leaving on 2 forwards. There will be odd occassions, but not enough to be significant

The point I made was that in choosing 2 hookers plus Burrow at 7, as some were advocating, means you have to omit one current backrower in any case assuming 4 props are picked. This was the main point I made as I believe that the backrower offers more to the side than 2 hookers plus Burrow.

But in addition to losing a current backrower there would be also be no option for a back or half back. In my book and for the purposes of this point a half back is a back not a forward. Therefore the issue was nothing to do with having a half back and a back on the bench which had not been suggested and why tvoc is off on a tangent.

Of course it all depends on the quality of the squad and the playing style. The policy of limiting the bench with 4 big forwards only to allow a rest period for other big forwards is a mistake. IMO we should only play 2 props on the bench if they have a good go forward game because if they only offer a good tackling stint then a back rower would be a better option. Players like Kirke and Clarkson do not offer enough impact to be on the bench IMO

The bench should primarily include players capable of changing the play/result in your favour and the chances are improved with one of these being a back (or half back) as most tries are scored by backs. So they offer better odds of having a positive impact on a result it seems odd not to include a back on the bench. Last year this was proven with Burrow coming off the bench primarily as a back and having a huge impact.

Apologies, but your post suggests to me that you have a very limited understanding of the game and how it works. You are right that the backs do score the majority of the points, but the reason they do this is because of the immense amount of work the forwards do. Having 3 or 4 forwards on the bench is designed to spread the workload of the players doing the most work. If you play with McGuire, Burrow, Sinfield, McShane & Hood, you are left with only 7 players who you describe as go forward players.

We have some total workhorses in our team, but that doesn't mean we should add more work on them, we should be trying to get more players to spread the load effectively so that our better players can improve their quality in each collision

agreed of the 5 players you mention there surely only a max of 4 can play in a 17 at one time, maybe even 3

If we consider Burrow to be a back are we now saying that the two hooker policy used by Saints ( Cunningham and Roby ) and indeed Leeds ( Buderus and Diskin ) was foolish ?

Actually in the latter case it was.... But that is a different story. Without a doubt I believe the McShane and Hood duo would work far better. They complement each other to a greater degree.

You said Leeds playing a starting scrum-half and hooker with a hooker/halfback on the bench would limit the coaches options. Yet that formula has pretty much been the norm for several seasons. You suggested he might wish to have the option of a spare back on the bench in addition to the above. I asked for examples, you waffled.

In 2011 it happened on 3 out of 36 occasions but I would suggest when it did it was not for the game-breaking potential you imply. Twice it occurred with McShane/McGuire to accomodate a player being eased back after injury coincidentally against generally perceived to be weaker opposition (Crusaders at Headingley - both in League and Cup) the other example being Burrow/Smith in the disaster pre Wembley outing at the Stoop where Leeds had run out of forwards they were prepared to risk.

So that appears to be a grand total of 3 out of 36 in 2011 with plausable explanations other than designing game-breaking potential, unless you know different?

As previously argued, very clearly a minority situation (even without the explanation) so the position you present that the Leeds coach wishes to have the option of a spare back appears to be one without justification.

Well I have been a student of the game for more than 50 years and have seen trends come and go including a time when we did not have substitutes at all. I am fully aware of the workload that forwards undertake and how the game has worked at different times. When you consider that 4 of the forwards who produce our greatest workload take or need the least rests - JJB, JP, Delaney and Ablett which is contrary to your point. I could suggests that perhaps the depth of your understanding of the game is limited to current trends without no thought of innovation.

You still miss the point. I am not advocating playing McShane, Hood and Burrow at the same time so why persist. I am happy with playing Burrow and one hooker on the bench. It is precisely the point I made that playing two hookers and Burrow reduces a workhorse from being on the bench.

The tactic of rotating 4 forwards from the bench has been with us for some time but it has not resulted in any noticable improved quality but rather a drop in entertainment value as it encourages more collision from fresher forwards and less chance of making the ball work to find the gaps.

Cunningham and Roby worked well as they both had impact in different ways. Buderus and Diskin did not work well IMO as both were momentum players rather than impact.

The coach prefers Sinfield at 6 and so to get Burrow on the field for the maximum time means him starting at hooker which he is capable of doing and is being used in the much the same way as Thomas Leuluai.

I prefer our current successful strategy of Burrow stating at 9 + one of McShane/Hood with Sinfield starting at 6. To start Burrow at 7 means Sinfield starting at to 13. If we revert to this combination I do not yet see McShane offering more than one of Hauraki/Pitts/Clarkson/A.Back. If Ellis plays for us next year then my point is even more valid. However if we consider playing just one prop on the bench then there would be more flexibility.

Is this the Thomas Leuluai who's one of the most damaging defenders in the league and makes over 20 tackles a match, many of them around the ruck?

Not saying that Burrow is being used incorrectly, but he's used completely differently to Thomas Leuluai. Leuluai is a hooker who sometimes switches to half but still defends hooker. Burrow is the complete opposite.

The problem isn't having 2 hookers its having 2 hookers, 2 halves, a half playing at 13, and effectively another at fullback. Too many chiefs and not enough native americans?

:2rhzmgoj

What are you talking about? I did not make a general point regarding positions. I said quite clearly that starting:2rhzmgoj Burrow :2rhzmgojat 7 with :2rhzmgojMcShane and Hood:2rhzmgoj would limit the coaches options because with :2rhzmgojSinfield:2rhzmgoj at 13 you would have to drop a current backrower and if:2rhzmgoj Ellis :2rhzmgojreturns to Leeds next year you would have to drop 2 current backrowers. We were talking about the combination of these :2rhzmgojspecific

That is fair enough, but how the game was played even 10 years ago, is pretty irrelevant to how it is played now. Unless you think hookers still need to hook the ball in the scrum.



You don't really make sense there. I think you are saying that our top forwards don't need much rest. If so, that is true, but I would have thought that were you to play them many more minutes than we already do then they will either provide little quality for those extra minutes; get fatigued earlier in the season and be less fit for the business end; or pick up injuries due to taking on too much.



This wasn't clear from your previous posts


I guess it depends on what you determine to be entertainment. Some people like collission, some like skill. I like a bit of both

Yes they are different in style. I meant that Leuluai is a scrum half playing at hooker buy has certainly stepped up his defensive abilities.

No it is not irrelevant. The game is evolving but is basically the same and sometimes things go around. Because 4 forwards pack the bench now does not mean this will always be so. Already they have reduced the interchanges perhaps to allow more fatugue and so open up the game.




I am making the point that the players who play the least time with longer rests are not our best forwards and are the least productive. So you cannot argue that more resting produces better quality. But I am not suggesting playing our best forwards for even longer although I think this would happen if our 2 hookers were played plus Burrow at 7 because we would have one less back rower on the bench. That is why I am against this proposal.

So it does not follow that keeping 4 forwards on the bench is therefore the best tactic. IMO 2 props on the bench may now be a luxuary. It is horses for courses and as I said it depends on the talent in the squad. For example if Leeds now had available another McGuire, Burrow, Watkins etc do you not think we would have an advantage in playing one of them on the bench? On other ocassions it makes sense to play 4 big forwards but not as a given IMO.

However we must also consider that our 2 centres are making more than 20 tackles each per game which is more than some forwards achieve so it is not just the forwards who have to be looked after as we need their sharpness to score the tries!



I don't see why. I made it clear about 6 times

eg 1 "I was pointing out clearly that if both hookers are picked along with Burrow at 7, as nantwich and others were proposing, and assuming they pick 4 props then the coach would have only one bench place left to choose between Clarkson, Hauraki, Pitts or Smith or any other back. Therefore choosing both McShane and Hood + Burrow at 7 would limit the coaches options too much.

eg2 Reply to you
"The point I made was that in choosing 2 hookers plus Burrow at 7, as some were advocating, means you have to omit one current backrower in any case assuming 4 props are picked. This was the main point I made as I believe that the backrower offers more to the side than 2 hookers plus Burrow."



I too like a bit of both, but as a former back myself I prefer to see more skill than brawn.

After his efforts for th U20s last week I'd hope for McShane's case that he'd be back in the full squad this week.
Viewing the U20 game vs Cas I was struck by the apparent physical similarities between Steve Ward & Sinfield, does anybody know if that's true?

I dunno how Rob himself feels about playing hooker, or whether it's strictly speaking his best position, but I was struck, particularly in the Manly game, by how much he's starting to look like one. His distribution from DH is really looking the part at times and seems to get better all the time (suggesting he's working quite hard on it, which is certainly consistent with his usual approach to his career), and he has always liked to get in at DH and scoot, even when he plays scrum half.

Also, does anybody have any idea of how often it is actually him who goes to DH, because I have the impression that work gets shared around a bit, with Sinfield and Webb both being happy enough to go in and do the job. Are we really seeing a more flexible approach to the job?

It's quite straightforward. I was replying to this:



The red parts I follow, the blue part I queried and asked for clarification of when this option had been selected. You provided nothing specific so I did to show how infrequently these anomolies occurr and offered explanations as to possibly why when they do.

All your rowing back since doesn't alter the above post but if we are agreed there isn't room on the banch or flexibility over the number of possible interchanges to include 'a Smith or any other back' I'm happy to leave it there.



Brian McDermott isn't Steve Hilton. He didn't invent that use for Burrow he returned to it. Despite Burrow saying 'I always start' to Sam Tomkins, that wasn't always the case. Eighty seven times he's started on the bench (seventy four of those before McDermott took over as head coach) and rarely did he replace the starting scrum-half under Powell and early Smith either. He came on initially to zip around at dummy half to give the sole hooker a break and then mixed and matched jumping in and out as required when Mears/Diskin/Dunemann returned.

I credit coach McDermott with reintroducing the policy and revitalising Burrow's form but not with inventing it or thinking outside the box.



I've explained what I was replying to.