Re: Will McShane ask for a transfer ? : Sat Mar 03, 2012 11:04 am  

We have two good up and coming young hookers and it makes sense to rotate, if thats the word we use. Bring them on steady both will get their chances and more than likely become the starting hookers when ready.
When the games get tougher we will need the hooker to defend around the ruck (like buderus did)anyone watching now will notice Rb always goes out wide like a good scrum half when we defend, leaves us short in the middle. I am convinced mcShane will be the goods as the year progresses and will be content (even if champing at the bit) with his bit part for now

Re: Will McShane ask for a transfer ? : Sat Mar 03, 2012 11:08 am  

nantwichexile wrote:

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 '

I think you're missing the point. McShane doesn't so much need resting, but if we do happen to have an injury crisis later in the season it was a good opportunity to give Hood a bit of first team action last night, so when his time comes he's ready for it. Added to that, I don't think there'll be much between them, and it keeps McShane on his toes. Hood has probably earned an opportunity with his efforts in pre-season and in the u20's. Who's to say we should hold him back because McShane is doing OK? Is OK good enough, or does McShane's 2 try performance last night show that he's determined to get that place back (FWIW I'm sure he'll be back in the side regardless next week).

As for your point regarding Hall, there is a world of difference between Hall and Chisholm at this point in time, so that wouldn't be so much rotating as weakening. If Hall does happen to be rested it would be a complete rest as he plays week in week out for 80 minutes, something McShane doesn't do. I would expect Ward to get a game at some point though.

Re: Will McShane ask for a transfer ? : Sat Mar 03, 2012 11:23 am  

i think its obvious BM doesn't fancy mcshane

Re: Will McShane ask for a transfer ? : Sat Mar 03, 2012 2:38 pm  

nantwichexile wrote:

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

I said IF the Ellis news is correct! So it does not make my argument irrelevant.

nantwichexile wrote:

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

You have not answered my question even without Ellis. In order to play McShane, Hood and Burrow at the same time, as you suggest, who do you leave out (or 'drop' in your terms) Clarkson, Hauraki, Pitts or Smith. And do you think this is then a better balanced side?

Re: Will McShane ask for a transfer ? : Sat Mar 03, 2012 5:47 pm  

GCM1980 wrote:

I think you're missing the point. McShane doesn't so much need resting, but if we do happen to have an injury crisis later in the season it was a good opportunity to give Hood a bit of first team action last night, so when his time comes he's ready for it. Added to that, I don't think there'll be much between them, and it keeps McShane on his toes. Hood has probably earned an opportunity with his efforts in pre-season and in the u20's. Who's to say we should hold him back because McShane is doing OK? Is OK good enough, or does McShane's 2 try performance last night show that he's determined to get that place back (FWIW I'm sure he'll be back in the side regardless next week).
As for your point regarding Hall, there is a world of difference between Hall and Chisholm at this point in time, so that wouldn't be so much rotating as weakening. If Hall does happen to be rested it would be a complete rest as he plays week in week out for 80 minutes, something McShane doesn't do. I would expect Ward to get a game at some point though.

I think you're missing the point. I agree Hood should have been given his chance but McShane has hardly been given a 'fair crack of the whip' with game time apart from the WCC....when he looked the part, alternated well with Burrow ...and did nowt wrong. He subsequently is 'dropped' to the under 20's ...my point is do you think there is any possibility that Burrow might be 'rotated' into the under 20's for example ?

As for Hall his name was just one I picked 'out of the hat' to again emphaize the point. Instead of Hall substitute his name with Peacock, or Bailey, or Lleulai ...etc. Do you think any of those wil be 'rotated' into the U-20's ?

McShane IMO is for some reason out of favour......quite the antithesis to Kirke who always somehow mysteriously seems to find favour.

Re: Will McShane ask for a transfer ? : Sat Mar 03, 2012 5:49 pm  

tad rhino wrote:

i think its obvious BM doesn't fancy mcshane

Exactly. You just put it quite a bit more succinctly than me.

Re: Will McShane ask for a transfer ? : Sat Mar 03, 2012 5:57 pm  

Juan Cornetto wrote:

I said IF the Ellis news is correct! So it does not make my argument irrelevant.

Of course it does. You or nobody else knows what the future might hold with the remaining playing staff (incoming or outgoing) by the time Ellis gets here IF he does.

You have not answered my question even without Ellis. In order to play McShane, Hood and Burrow at the same time, as you suggest, who do you leave out (or 'drop' in your terms) Clarkson, Hauraki, Pitts or Smith. And do you think this is then a better balanced side?

Without a doubt YES I would have all three (Burrow starting 7; McShane starting 9 and Hood off the bench) starting at the expense of Clarkson (done nothing exceptional to date),Hauraki (does he ever ?), Pitts (irrevelant at the moment owing to JJB's injury and who has surely just cemented his chance at Clarkson's expense)...and Smith (way off the pace for a starting first team place).

Anything else ?

At least I like your new avatar (why did you previously have a giraffe ?)

Re: Will McShane ask for a transfer ? : Sat Mar 03, 2012 7:28 pm  

nantwichexile wrote:

As for Hall his name was just one I picked 'out of the hat' to again emphaize the point. Instead of Hall substitute his name with Peacock, or Bailey, or Lleulai ...etc. Do you think any of those wil be 'rotated' into the U-20's ?

No. None of those players still learning their trade to the extent that both McShane and Hood are. They're all first team regulars and if they get a rest that will be exactly what it is.

We have two good young hookers and the chances are they'll be fighting it out all season for their place in the squad. Giving them both a 4 year contract last season doesn't suggest a lack of faith in either of them. As I said, I'm sure McShane will be back in next week at the expense of Hood.

Re: Will McShane ask for a transfer ? : Sat Mar 03, 2012 8:59 pm  

Is it just me or is it not something that we should be pleased about that we have soooooo many options at 6,7 and 9, the most pivotal positions on the pitch?

FWIW, to nobody's surprise, I think Burrow should be at 7 (McGuire at 6 and SInfield 13) and that would leave room for Hood and McShane in the 17, if necessary.

Re: Will McShane ask for a transfer ? : Sun Mar 04, 2012 9:21 am  

G1 wrote:

Is it just me or is it not something that we should be pleased about that we have soooooo many options at 6,7 and 9, the most pivotal positions on the pitch?

FWIW, to nobody's surprise, I think Burrow should be at 7 (McGuire at 6 and SInfield 13) and that would leave room for Hood and McShane in the 17, if necessary.

I agree plus IF we only have 1 of either Hood or Mcshane in the 17 we still have Burrow who could revert to the 9 role should we get an injury or want to try a different approach.
We still have plenty of options and versatillity with 6,7,9 and 13 in all their original positions.