Re: Will McShane ask for a transfer ? : Sun Mar 04, 2012 10:00 am  

Maybe it's Jimmy Lowes - not a bad hooker in his time IIRC - who sees flaws in McShane's game.
Re Hood, IMV they selected him at the expense of McShane for the Cas game to give him exposure at SL level against opposition the coaches viewed as appropriate for him
Unfortunately, Cas didn't play ball, so they couldn't risk putting him on till it was clear the game was won.
McDermott's comments after the game would seem to me to verify that view.
I agree with the view that McShane will be back this week vs the Wolves.

Re: Will McShane ask for a transfer ? : Sun Mar 04, 2012 10:55 am  

nantwichexile wrote:

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 ?)

I clearly stated "when all are fit and had included JJB in the mix. So in order to play both McShane and Hood plus Burrow at 7 would mean at the expense of Hauraki, Clarkson, Pitts and next season perhaps Ellis as well with never any room for a back on the bench.

IMO McShane has not yet done enough to offer the team more than the above named players set to lose out. I accept though that he has not had sufficient chance yet but this is what happens when you have good competition for places. Despite his poor game against Wigan Hauraki has improved with a consistent all round work rate, Clarkson though currently not on form has proven himself in the past, Pitts is improving and if we do sign Ellis it would not make sense to play 2 specialist hookers when we have Burrow able to interchange with either one of McShane/Hood.

If we have signed Ellis for next year then it is much more likely that Sinfield will stay at 6. For this reason and also as they say 'it it ain't broke why fix it?'

Nothing else thanks.

With regard to the avatar... too many people were becoming a pain in the neck!

And the giraffe well it is funny when chewing but I could not get the animation to work. I then kinda got used to it and with so many negative comments floating around the long neck helped me 'rise above it'

Re: Will McShane ask for a transfer ? : Sun Mar 04, 2012 3:24 pm  

Juan Cornetto wrote:

I clearly stated "when all are fit and had included JJB in the mix. So in order to play both McShane and Hood plus Burrow at 7 would mean at the expense of Hauraki, Clarkson, Pitts and next season perhaps Ellis as well with never any room for a back on the bench.

Do you think there needs to be room for a back on the bench?

Re: Will McShane ask for a transfer ? : Sun Mar 04, 2012 6:51 pm  

tvoc wrote:

Do you think there needs to be room for a back on the bench?

The coach should always have this option (he used this succesfully last season) but with a couple of our back rowers able to play in the centres it is less likley to be used at present.

Re: Will McShane ask for a transfer ? : Sun Mar 04, 2012 7:30 pm  

I'm not sure (in reality) that he has this option with only ten interchanges available per game in 2012.

A spare dedicated back would appear to be a bit of a luxury, liable to be underutilised and put pressure on the in-game forward rotation.

Re: Will McShane ask for a transfer ? : Sun Mar 04, 2012 7:47 pm  

tvoc wrote:

I'm not sure (in reality) that he has this option with only ten interchanges available per game in 2012.

A spare dedicated back would appear to be a bit of a luxury, liable to be underutilised and put pressure on the in-game forward rotation.

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.

Re: Will McShane ask for a transfer ? : Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:58 pm  

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.

Re: Will McShane ask for a transfer ? : Sun Mar 04, 2012 9:00 pm  

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

Re: Will McShane ask for a transfer ? : Mon Mar 05, 2012 8:30 am  

tvoc wrote:

I'm not sure (in reality) that he has this option with only ten interchanges available per game in 2012.

A spare dedicated back would appear to be a bit of a luxury, liable to be underutilised and put pressure on the in-game forward rotation.

True but would have been handy at Wigan!

Re: Will McShane ask for a transfer ? : Mon Mar 05, 2012 8:38 am  

tvoc wrote:

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.

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.