Re: Will McShane ask for a transfer ? : Sat Mar 03, 2012 9:57 am  

nantwichexile wrote:

Not so long ago I would have said why ? I do have more faith now....but it still puzzles me. It's as if Sinfield is immovable now from SO. McGuire and Burrow both demand a starting position so......stick Burrow in at starting hooker regardless seems to be the mantra.

The season is still young and injuries and form will no doubt make for different line ups as we progress. McGuire is begining to look sharp once again and this may lead to his return to the 6 spot. However for the moment playing Sinfield at 6 has been a success so we should not be in a hurry to change a winning formula.

With regard to playing both McShane & Hood and starting Burrow at 7 means one of the back rowers drops out as Sinfield moves to 13. So when all are fit the real choice you would have to make would be to pick only 3 out of JJB, Delaney, Ablett, Clarkson, Hauraki, assuming you keep 2 props on the bench and you don't include a reserve back. So on form you would pick JJB, Delaney and Ablett leaving out Clarkson, Hauraki and Smith etc.

IMO Hood looks to have more star quality than McShane but I am not sure picking McShane ahead of Clarkson & Hauraki would improve the balance of the team.

Re: Will McShane ask for a transfer ? : Sat Mar 03, 2012 9:57 am  

nantwichexile wrote:

That's patently nonsense... Correct me if I am wrong, but is it not just as likely a player will suffer an injury in the under 20's match ??

I think the key phrase there was 'rotating while we have relatively few injuries'.

Re: Will McShane ask for a transfer ? : Sat Mar 03, 2012 10:07 am  

Juan Cornetto wrote:

The season is still young and injuries and form will no doubt make for different line ups as we progress. McGuire is begining to look sharp once again and this may lead to his return to the 6 spot. However for the moment playing Sinfield at 6 has been a success so we should not be in a hurry to change a winning formula.

With regard to playing both McShane & Hood and starting Burrow at 7 means one of the back rowers drops out as Sinfield moves to 13. So when all are fit the real choice you would have to make would be to pick only 3 out of JJB, Delaney, Ablett, Clarkson, Hauraki, assuming you keep 2 props on the bench and you don't include a reserve back. So on form you would pick JJB, Delaney and Ablett leaving out Clarkson, Hauraki and Smith etc.

IMO Hood looks to have more star quality than McShane but I am not sure picking McShane ahead of Clarkson & Hauraki would improve the balance of the team.

PS: If the Ellis news is correct then next year would you pick McShane ahead of Ellis, Clarkson, Hauraki or Pitts in order to play Hood & McShane?. I guess the coach will persist with starting Burrow at 9 with one or other of Hood/McShane on the bench in what is proving to be a winning formula.

Re: Will McShane ask for a transfer ? : Sat Mar 03, 2012 10:13 am  

GCM1980 wrote:

I think the key phrase there was 'rotating while we have relatively few injuries'.

The rotation argument would make more sense if players were actually rested ( Peacock )... Playing them in the under 20's surely negates any benefits of trying to ' conserve ' players.

Are all players going to rotated ? Are we going to see Ward and Chisholm in the first team with Webb and Hall in the under 20's ? McShane and Hood in the first team with Burrow rotated into the under 20's ? I don't think so.

The argument is disingenious IMO.... Players ARE being ' dropped '

Re: Will McShane ask for a transfer ? : Sat Mar 03, 2012 10:14 am  

How about sending McShane to London for the rest of the season? He would get a game every week. we only have 1 hooker in Chad Randall and he's awful. worked for BJB.

Please?

Re: Will McShane ask for a transfer ? : Sat Mar 03, 2012 10:27 am  

Dave Lister wrote:

How about sending McShane to London for the rest of the season? He would get a game every week. we only have 1 hooker in Chad Randall and he's awful. worked for BJB.

Please?

IF we don't up "his gametime" and maintain RB at 9 all season then i would back that idea as long as it was on a 24hr recall.

Re: Will McShane ask for a transfer ? : Sat Mar 03, 2012 10:31 am  

nantwichexile wrote:

Liam Hood looks real class.....BUT McShane did not deserve to be dropped. Why can't we have all three in the first 17 ? McShane starting at 9, Hood on the bench and of course Burrow back to starting 7.

Having Burrow then have that 'roaming' freedom to jump in at dummy half or 1st receiver with McShane and Hood alternating to complement him would really test defences (as proven in the WCC)

Your judging this on a 6 minute cameo apperance against a very tired Castleford team?, I'm hearing lots of good things about the players but i won't be calling him real class after a 6 minute performance.

Re: Will McShane ask for a transfer ? : Sat Mar 03, 2012 10:33 am  

Don't forget Boxing Day, George. He could be the next Mick Shaw

Oh, and I bet you are glad you swerved that bet last night

Re: Will McShane ask for a transfer ? : Sat Mar 03, 2012 10:39 am  

Dave Lister wrote:

Don't forget Boxing Day, George. He could be the next Mick Shaw

Oh, and I bet you are glad you swerved that bet last night

I'm not going to jump on the 'Next Big Thing' bandwaggon like a lot of Rhinos fans are after last nights performance but i'm looking forward to seeing more of him, I've seen McShane command games (Castleford & Bradford away last season) & he has one of the best kicking games at Leeds IMO, i think he is the better option at the minute.

Glad you talked me out of it mate otherwise that would have been embarrassing!

Re: Will McShane ask for a transfer ? : Sat Mar 03, 2012 10:55 am  

Juan Cornetto wrote:

PS: If the Ellis news is correct then next year would you pick McShane ahead of Ellis, Clarkson, Hauraki or Pitts in order to play Hood & McShane?. I guess the coach will persist with starting Burrow at 9 with one or other of Hood/McShane on the bench in what is proving to be a winning formula.

Who Leeds MIGHT sign in the future makes your argument here irrelevant

it might be a winning formula but my point remains: will McShane remain contented with his bit part ?