Re: Will McShane ask for a transfer ? : Tue Mar 06, 2012 3:05 pm  

nantwichexile wrote:

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.

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.

Re: Will McShane ask for a transfer ? : Tue Mar 06, 2012 3:23 pm  

Juan Cornetto wrote:

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.

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.

Re: Will McShane ask for a transfer ? : Tue Mar 06, 2012 4:03 pm  

nantwichexile wrote:

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.

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?

Re: Will McShane ask for a transfer ? : Tue Mar 06, 2012 4:06 pm  

tvoc wrote:

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.

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

With much of professional sport being predictable, coaches should be prepared to think outside the box to take make things happen and not simply always follow excepted practices. Brian McD did that at the end of last season with Burrow coming off the bench primarily as a back which was a great success ...period..

Why do you to try to make an argument based on something you have deliberately miss quoted? To ask for examples to an point I never made really is waffle![/quote]

Re: Will McShane ask for a transfer ? : Tue Mar 06, 2012 4:11 pm  

Juan Cornetto wrote:

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.

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.

Juan Cornetto wrote:

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.

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.

Juan Cornetto wrote:

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.

This wasn't clear from your previous posts

Juan Cornetto wrote:

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.

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

Re: Will McShane ask for a transfer ? : Tue Mar 06, 2012 4:17 pm  

craigizzard wrote:

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.

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.

Re: Will McShane ask for a transfer ? : Tue Mar 06, 2012 5:07 pm  

The Eagle wrote:

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.

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.

The Eagle wrote:

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.

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!

The Eagle wrote:

This wasn't clear from your previous posts

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."

The Eagle wrote:

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

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

Re: Will McShane ask for a transfer ? : Wed Mar 07, 2012 10:17 am  

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?

Re: Will McShane ask for a transfer ? : Wed Mar 07, 2012 10:25 am  

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?

Re: Will McShane ask for a transfer ? : Wed Mar 07, 2012 1:33 pm  

Juan Cornetto wrote:

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

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

Juan Cornetto wrote:

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.

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.

Juan Cornetto wrote:

With much of professional sport being predictable, coaches should be prepared to think outside the box to take make things happen and not simply always follow excepted practices. Brian McD did that at the end of last season with Burrow coming off the bench primarily as a back which was a great success ...period.

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.

Juan Cornetto wrote:

Why do you to try to make an argument based on something you have deliberately miss quoted? To ask for examples to an point I never made really is waffle!

I've explained what I was replying to.