Meh! The whingers are always going to whinge. I'm more interested in how Damo can hear Webby's forward passes on his radio!! Now there's a talent!

There are a few things which will take some time to sort out this year - hooker, first choice forwards etc. None of that is sorted out yet - all that's happened is BM gave the 17 against KR first chance to shine. If you add in the learning that you'd expect Watkins/Hardaker to do over the season, then it will probably take some time for the style of play and first choice 17 to get settled.

I thought Burrow looked very sharp. His passing from the ground isn't always as accurate as a traditional hookers would be - I remember how Bailey had to stop to take the ball a couple of times. He did very well when the play of the ball was messed up a couple of times (once in front of the North Stand in the second half) to avoid losing yards and scampering out to make a positive play.



My concern would be that McShane is more suited to starting the game and Burrow can make a much bigger impact from the bench. I have no objection, however to anything after one game and one win - lets how a few weeks pan out before we start moaning!

Hooker has become arguably the most important position on the field in the modern game and if not the most important it's one of the two or three. Buderus was needlessly released from a valid playing contract for 2012, it was a contract he said while not being his preferred choice was one he would honour as he fully appreciated Leeds' position. It was stated he would not be released unless a player of equal status could be secured as a replacement. Leeds, to the best of my knowledge, have recruited Moore and Griffin with 1st grade experience.



Are Leeds fans correct to contrast and compare the rhetoric to the reality?



Of all the possible replacements for Buderus as starting hooker, I must confess, Burrow was not high on the list.

"the list". Who's list? He appears to have been top of Mr McDermott's list.

Sorry. My bad it wasn't supposed to be 'the list' it was 'my list.'



Was Burrow top of 'your list' for starting hooker?

No, that would have been Liam Hood. Burrow would have been to of "my list" for starting scrum half.



But Hood was injured and I am not sure I have much more confidence in McShane than McDermott has although he was suprising me early last season with some excellent play before getting dropped.

Whose

There are no excuses for making Burrow starting hooker.....especially when you're the guy that introduced the concept of making the guy a VERY effective super sub.



There are no excuses for making our guy given the no.9 shirt sit on the bench throughtout the whole game ....whatever the unexpected injury to your starting winger.



There are no excuses for showing such favouritism to Huaraki: a liability in the forwards who I thought might be less so in the centre position. How wrong can one be ? Clarkson has to start: he is not an "impact" bench forward.



....or does somebody out there think McDermott's selection decisions [iare[/i erudite ??

Burrow at rake from the beginning really doesn't work for me. No matter how much he "works hard" his passing to a moving object just isnt up to scratch. He runs around to laterally at times too and the other players don't seem to have a clue what he's doing. The only place for Burrow in this team IMO is as an impact dummy half against tired defenders.



As for Hauraki, I thought he was very good last week. Tonight though, not so much. He was playing out of position though at short notice. He was just too slow and cost us good field position twice at vital times in the first half. I just hope my love child is fit next week

The decision to continue with burrow starting is poor, the decision to start with Hauraki over clarkson (who is not an impact sub in the slightest) was baffling. But all that was small in comparison to due to smiths injury we had two backrowers at centre, but didn't switch Sinfield back to loose and allow the bigger hooker to come on, putting Burrow back to half.

Apparently the reason McShane didn't get on was because of the injury to Smith. If that's the case, then you can only come to the conclusion that we were unable to adapt our planned substitutions around an injury to the backs. Not a good sign that we are capable to adjust to the game as it is being played. Worrying...