Re: Segayaro : Wed Sep 07, 2016 4:44 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

Do you want to see a big 6'2, 16 and a half stone player who defends on the wing but is mostly used as a workhorse up the middle, taking hit ups on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd tackle like a prop?

No and I don't want a hooker who defends on the left wing, week in week out, which will make most of the team knacker themselves out picking up the slack in defence just because once in a blue moon one of his mazy runs from dummy half will come off, whereas most of the time he just gets squashed and dominated by a big forward.

Re: Segayaro : Wed Sep 07, 2016 5:07 pm  

ThePrinter wrote:

No and I don't want a hooker who defends on the left wing, week in week out, which will make most of the team knacker themselves out picking up the slack in defence just because once in a blue moon one of his mazy runs from dummy half will come off, whereas most of the time he just gets squashed and dominated by a big forward.

Have you ever watched a game of RL? Burrow has never defended on the wing. I dont know if you have noticed but he is very short. That would cause problems from kick defence and whatnot.

You could play a player like Ryan Hall on the wing. He is very good at it. Takes a lot of first hit ups. Makes a lot of metres. Hasnt been scoring a whole heap of tries for a winger recently though.

Though i am amazed that this club has managed to carry a player to 7 grand finals, 3 lls, 3 wcc, 2 ccs, im not sure how they managed to carry him to 2 harry sunderland awards but it seems like great work. His once in a blue moon mazy runs that only resulted in 183 tries. It really is amazing how leeds have been so successful for so long having to carry him.

Just think how great it would have been if we had had proper hookers and proper halves and proper loose forwards all this time. We could have been a successful side like everyone else.

Re: Segayaro : Wed Sep 07, 2016 5:40 pm  

question Smokey, would you be comfortable with Burrow being Hooker for half or two thirds of the season from here were Segeyaro injured? do you think if that happened after having a 'proper hooker' again it wouldn't affect the team by having to pander to his needs again?

This is the major concern of many on here. You don't have to justify the benefits of Burrow, we are all aware of how great he can be, but that needs to be from the impact sub role only unless we are desperate for a game or two.

Re: Segayaro : Wed Sep 07, 2016 6:01 pm  

Biff Tannen wrote:

question Smokey, would you be comfortable with Burrow being Hooker for half or two thirds of the season from here were Segeyaro injured? do you think if that happened after having a 'proper hooker' again it wouldn't affect the team by having to pander to his needs again?

This is the major concern of many on here. You don't have to justify the benefits of Burrow, we are all aware of how great he can be, but that needs to be from the impact sub role only unless we are desperate for a game or two.

The honest answer is it depends on who we have in the halves. I wouldnt go McGuire, Lilley and Burrow no. Nor with Sutcliffe.

But, sad as it is, im not sure there is much left in McGuire, and i think Sutcliffe is doing well at FB, so i think we will need a half regardless.

Re: Segayaro : Wed Sep 07, 2016 6:11 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

Have you ever watched a game of RL? Burrow has never defended on the wing. I dont know if you have noticed but he is very short. That would cause problems from kick defence and whatnot.

He defends one in next to Ryan Hall on the left, you can argue about semantics if you want and say left wing, left edge, but it certainly isn't in the middle.

SmokeyTA wrote:

Though i am amazed that this club has managed to carry a player to 7 grand finals, 3 lls, 3 wcc, 2 ccs, im not sure how they managed to carry him to 2 harry sunderland awards but it seems like great work. His once in a blue moon mazy runs that only resulted in 183 tries. It really is amazing how leeds have been so successful for so long having to carry him.

Again you're listing achievements mostly made in the halves with different playing personal at the club. The debate is about the 2017 season and having him play hooker then with the squad we have NOW.....him winning a Harry Sunderland award playing scrum half in 2007 has zero relevance to the debate.

No one has said we carried him when he played in the halves.
No one has said we carried him when he came off the bench to play an impact role.
No one has said he can't do a job there on occasions.

The argument is (one you're completely ignoring) is him STARTING at HOOKER, WEEK IN WEEK OUT in 2017.

Re: Segayaro : Wed Sep 07, 2016 6:17 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

But Nathan Cleary does. Where as Leeds previously may have needed to hide Burrow, Sinfield was often our top tackler. We could have stuck a 9 on Sinfields back and had that 30 tackle a game hooker. But we would still have played exactly the same way.

With most players there are things you gain and things you lose. You dont dump peak Lauitiiti because he is a lazy defender. You surround him with great defenders like Ellis, like JJB, like Senior, and you cover for his deficiencies through other positions and other players. That is balance.

If you have a great defensive half, you dont need a great defensive hooker. If you have a great creative Fullback, you can go with a workhorse at loose. If you have great creative second rowers, you can go with a defensive minded centre, You can cover the work of bigger forwards if you have big hardworking backs

But Cleary plays 7 rather than 9, so stands where I would expect a 7 to stand.

I agree with your second paragraph, the point that maybe I am not making clearly, is that I don't believe we can find that balance with this current group of players. Or when asking Burrow to do a whole game at 9. That is not to say it's impossible, in fact we have managed to hit that balance on the head with Burrow working alongside the likes of Diskin, Buderus, Lunt etc.

Again your last paragraph I mostly agree with, except for the bit about the hooker and the half, I do think you can get away with someone doing less tackling at hooker, but IMO it would be covered by the 13 or real workaholic forwards (JP, Gallen). I don't think we have that player in the ranks who fits the bill.

Re: Segayaro : Wed Sep 07, 2016 6:58 pm  

Brett Delaney fits the bill, the bloke would run his blood to water, if his body would allow him. Unfortunately I don't think his legs have got it in them anymore

Re: Segayaro : Wed Sep 07, 2016 10:03 pm  

Like it or not Burrow is contracted for next year and will be back up 9 probably for Segeyaro by looks. In a salary cap era can a team carry 3 top hookers? Do any other SL teams have 3 big name 9s? Maybe 2 and a kid but Hallas is being offered as a loanee next year so if that goes thru he wont be around.

I honestly think a fit Stevie Ward will tighten the middle defence up a hell of a lot next year fingers crossed the lad can stay fit along with Segeyaro.

Burrow is perfectly fine as an impact 9 hes done it successfully for plenty of years for us and despite the criticism on here he has never let Leeds down.

Rightly or wrongly can anyone see us signing another 9 if Segeyaro stays???

Re: Segayaro : Wed Sep 07, 2016 10:56 pm  

ThePrinter wrote:

He defends one in next to Ryan Hall on the left, you can argue about semantics if you want and say left wing, left edge, but it certainly isn't in the middle.

But you would sound a little stupid saying you dont want a creative player defending on the outside. Most teams hide creative players there.

Again you're listing achievements mostly made in the halves with different playing personal at the club. The debate is about the 2017 season and having him play hooker then with the squad we have NOW.....him winning a Harry Sunderland award playing scrum half in 2007 has zero relevance to the debate.

No one has said we carried him when he played in the halves.
No one has said we carried him when he came off the bench to play an impact role.
No one has said he can't do a job there on occasions.

The argument is (one you're completely ignoring) is him STARTING at HOOKER, WEEK IN WEEK OUT in 2017.

Once again, and im not sure how you are still struggling with it, whether Burrow plays in the halves, or at 9, it makes no difference.

Re: Segayaro : Wed Sep 07, 2016 11:03 pm  

Barrie's Glass Eye wrote:

But Cleary plays 7 rather than 9, so stands where I would expect a 7 to stand.

But its not necessary for a haf to need to be protected defensively. There are many 7's who can defend well.

I agree with your second paragraph, the point that maybe I am not making clearly, is that I don't believe we can find that balance with this current group of players. Or when asking Burrow to do a whole game at 9. That is not to say it's impossible, in fact we have managed to hit that balance on the head with Burrow working alongside the likes of Diskin, Buderus, Lunt etc.

Again your last paragraph I mostly agree with, except for the bit about the hooker and the half, I do think you can get away with someone doing less tackling at hooker, but IMO it would be covered by the 13 or real workaholic forwards (JP, Gallen). I don't think we have that player in the ranks who fits the bill.

Where you cover it from doesnt really matter. As i said earlier, i think regardless of hooker, we dont have the halves sorted.