Re: Segayaro : Wed Sep 07, 2016 11:59 pm  

Marty - what we need is someone else who can cover hooker. Properly. Whether that's Hallas or someone else doesn't bother me, but we need cover there. If Segeyaro gets injured I for one wouldn't put much faith in a team with Burrow playing long minutes as starting hooker. He's also beyond ordinary as a halfback. His value is off the bench against tired teams. If he no longer has the zip to create mayhem in that role then he shouldn't be in the 17, never mind long minutes.

Smokey - how can you argue that Burrow at 7 or 9 makes no difference? If he's at 7 he's virtually the same as any other weak defensive halfback, which most teams have and allow for. When he plays 9 without Sinfield we generally already have two small weak defenders on. That means one extra player to cover for. It can be done, but without someone as solid as Sinfield who is able to help the team maintain shape I just don't think it can work for any length of time.

Re: Segayaro : Thu Sep 08, 2016 6:54 am  

SmokeyTA wrote:

But you would sound a little stupid saying you dont want a creative player defending on the outside. Most teams hide creative players there.

Yes but they don't hide THREE creative players there do they.

SmokeyTA wrote:

Once again, and im not sure how you are still struggling with it, whether Burrow plays in the halves, or at 9, it makes no difference.

That's nonsense, of course there's a difference. In his game alone he goes from jumping into dummy half maybe 5/10% of the game with the rest of the time at first/second receiver..... to being at DH 80% of the game......that's a major difference especially when his distribution isn't as crisp as the likes of other hookers. It also make a huge difference to teammates as most of them have to alter their game in defence.

No difference? Oh why because he's still goes on a mazy run? Nonsense. Burrow playing 7 or 9 and no difference is the biggest BS line trotted out by people who support him playing at hooker.

Re: Segayaro : Thu Sep 08, 2016 8:02 am  

ThePrinter wrote:

Yes and they are able to play those positions in both attack and defence. Gareth Ellis hasn't moved to play prop in attack but still defending as a centre. Players evolve and play different positions, what we're talking about with Burrow isn't evolving, it's comprising....sacrificing others to take up the void he leaves in defence. Ellis' newer role doesn't do that, Bird, Asotasi, Westwood...whoever you want to point out who has moved positions hasn't done that.

What I'm saying going by your "there's no written rule".....lets play Mitch Garbutt at prop in attack but on the wing in defence,

But surely Ellis playing at prop, but not carrying the ball in attack a the centres is a compromise. Who defends in the prop position around the ruck? where does the named centre defend?

Re: Segayaro : Thu Sep 08, 2016 9:01 am  

BrisbaneRhino wrote:

Marty - what we need is someone else who can cover hooker. Properly. Whether that's Hallas or someone else doesn't bother me, but we need cover there. If Segeyaro gets injured I for one wouldn't put much faith in a team with Burrow playing long minutes as starting hooker. He's also beyond ordinary as a halfback. His value is off the bench against tired teams. If he no longer has the zip to create mayhem in that role then he shouldn't be in the 17, never mind long minutes.

I think the point Marty made, which i agree with, is that even if we go out and get a 'proper hooker' they arent likely to be any good. Like Falloon.

Smokey - how can you argue that Burrow at 7 or 9 makes no difference? If he's at 7 he's virtually the same as any other weak defensive halfback, which most teams have and allow for. When he plays 9 without Sinfield we generally already have two small weak defenders on. That means one extra player to cover for. It can be done, but without someone as solid as Sinfield who is able to help the team maintain shape I just don't think it can work for any length of time.

It has been done for 15 years with Burrow and Sinfield. Whether we put McGuire at Stand off, Burrow at Half and Sinfield at loose, or McGuire at half, Sinfield at Stand off and Burrow at Hooker, they played the same game.

As i said before, i wouldnt go McGuire, lilley, Burrow. But i dont think we can go with McGuire and Lilley anyway.

Re: Segayaro : Thu Sep 08, 2016 9:21 am  

ThePrinter wrote:

Yes but they don't hide THREE creative players there do they.

As you have been told, more times than should be necessary, you dont need to hide three creative players.

That's nonsense, of course there's a difference. In his game alone he goes from jumping into dummy half maybe 5/10% of the game with the rest of the time at first/second receiver..... to being at DH 80% of the game......that's a major difference especially when his distribution isn't as crisp as the likes of other hookers. It also make a huge difference to teammates as most of them have to alter their game in defence.

No difference? Oh why because he's still goes on a mazy run? Nonsense. Burrow playing 7 or 9 and no difference is the biggest BS line trotted out by people who support him playing at hooker.

If Burrow is first receiver, who is distributing the ball to his team-mates? Ill give you a clue, guess what a first receiver does.

Its like you have never watched a game before and get all your opinions from only reading about it. There have always been hookers with different skillsets doing different things, different positives and different negatives. James Roby doesnt play the game the same as Cam smith, who is different from Josh Hodgson, who is different from Keiron Cunningham. The idea that a hooker must have x skills and do x job ignores the reality that to blend a team what one player needs to do is entirely dependent on what the rest of the team can do.

Re: Segayaro : Thu Sep 08, 2016 9:54 am  

SmokeyTA wrote:

But you would sound a little stupid saying you dont want a creative player defending on the outside. Most teams hide creative players there.

I was a vertically challenged half (still vertically challenged but no longer a half) and I loved defending. To the point that, depending on where we were on the field, I'd fall off the first tackle so people would run at me (my teammates knew so would cover). Anyway, my coach used to go mad with me, not for missing the tackle but for doing too much in defence. Why? Because it sapped my stamina in attack which is where I had to focus. Andrew John's says similar in his biography. So halves aren't necessarily put out wide because they're weak in defence, it's as much to save their energy.

Re: Segayaro : Thu Sep 08, 2016 10:13 am  

SmokeyTA wrote:

Its like you have never watched a game before and get all your opinions from only reading about it. There have always been hookers with different skillsets doing different things, different positives and different negatives. James Roby doesnt play the game the same as Cam smith, who is different from Josh Hodgson, who is different from Keiron Cunningham. The idea that a hooker must have x skills and do x job ignores the reality that to blend a team what one player needs to do is entirely dependent on what the rest of the team can do.

They do all have different skill sets, but the one thing that they can all do at 9, which Burrow cannot is defend in the middle of the pitch. Can you name another player who will spend 80% of the game at dummy half but defend one in from the wing?

So you don't believe there are basic requirements of a player expected to play different postions? How many wingers do you see stick long term nowadays who can finish but can't deal with the high ball. That is not to say that all wingers are the same, or they are expected to do the same job, but you do have to have certain skills to be able to play that position long term.

Are you by any chance one of those people who think Leeds should move Ryan Hall into the second row.

Now we can hide Robbie, and have done successfully, as you say for years, but we no longer have the same players to be able to do this effectively, so are better going with a 9 who can defend in the middle (that's most of them) and Burrow coming off the bench. Imo, Burrow is better off when he can choose when to jump in at the PTB, rather than being handcuffed there all the time.

Re: Segayaro : Thu Sep 08, 2016 11:08 am  

SmokeyTA wrote:

As you have been told, more times than should be necessary, you dont need to hide three creative players.

So where are you putting your two halfbacks in defence then if Burrow if defending out next to the left wing? As the poster above mentions, there's a very good reason why just about every coach in RL has their halves defend out wide even if they're a good tackler or not and that to save them for attack.

Smokey TA wrote:

If Burrow is first receiver, who is distributing the ball to his team-mates? Ill give you a clue, guess what a first receiver does.

Its like you have never watched a game before and get all your opinions from only reading about it.

If you think passing from dummy half is the exact same as passing from first receiver then I'd suggest its you that hasn't ever watched a game before.

Re: Segayaro : Thu Sep 08, 2016 12:18 pm  

ThePrinter wrote:

If you think passing from dummy half is the exact same as passing from first receiver then I'd suggest its you that hasn't ever watched a game before.

Very underrated skill the pass from the floor. On a similar note, I've been impressed by the amount of assists Segeyaro has managed since he's got here, his range of passing and craft, especially on the goal line, has been a real difference imo.

Re: Segayaro : Thu Sep 08, 2016 12:29 pm  

Burrow's distribution from dummy half is mediocre at best, and he can't tackle in the middle of the pitch.he is also a maverick who does his own thing a lot of the time, some would say runs up his own backside, which takes away any shape the team may have. all the hookers you mentioned Smokey, the proper ones, can at least tackle through the middle and distribute to a competent level no matter what other traits they bring to the table, Burrow can't, simple.