: Thu Oct 23, 2008 10:23 am  

Big Dave T wrote:

Based on the conversations earlier here about Burrow and Sinfield having spells at hooker are we not guilty of doing what has cost us in the past and taking the best players and shoe horning them all into one side? I remember when we had a team full of loose forwards so one played 9, one played 6 and one played centre. Doesnt mean it will work.

I dont rate Diskin that much but would rather we had hookers playing hooker.

I dont think Diskin is outstanding, but his workrate alone would have seen him start if I picked the England team.

Newton would have been my first choice had he not been injured.

Like you I dont like playing people out of position.

: Thu Oct 23, 2008 10:23 am  

Standee wrote:

Never heard of him, is he related to Burrow from Leeds?

(The Burrows thing pi$$es me off, sorry!)

I actually missed the word pace out between Burrows and can...

: Thu Oct 23, 2008 10:36 am  

Big Dave T wrote:

Based on the conversations earlier here about Burrow and Sinfield having spells at hooker are we not guilty of doing what has cost us in the past and taking the best players and shoe horning them all into one side? I remember when we had a team full of loose forwards so one played 9, one played 6 and one played centre. Doesnt mean it will work.

I dont rate Diskin that much but would rather we had hookers playing hooker.

The slight difference here is that Sinfield and Burrow do this for Leeds so its not entirely alien to them. Leeds only have Diskin (until Buderus comes in 09) so Sinfield and Burrow will easily be able to slot into a hooking role during the game.

Also look at Australia's side, Tate and Monaghan are not wingers but will still play very well in that position.

: Thu Oct 23, 2008 10:38 am  

Dave K. wrote:

I dont think Diskin is outstanding, but his workrate alone would have seen him start if I picked the England team.

Newton would have been my first choice had he not been injured.

Like you I dont like playing people out of position.

I'd prefer people like Alker for work rate than Diskin.

: Thu Oct 23, 2008 10:39 am  

PAUL M wrote:

The slight difference here is that Sinfield and Burrow do this for Leeds so its not entirely alien to them. Leeds only have Diskin (until Buderus comes in 09) so Sinfield and Burrow will easily be able to slot into a hooking role during the game.

Also look at Australia's side, Tate and Monaghan are not wingers but will still play very well in that position.

Thing is the Aussies can do it and get away with it. We generally cant imo.

And because Burrow and Sinfield have been forced to cover 9 for Leeds doesnt mean they should act as in that role for GB when there are other specialist hookers out there in the SL. Annoys me a little bit as im sure you gather!

: Thu Oct 23, 2008 10:44 am  

Big Dave T wrote:

Thing is the Aussies can do it and get away with it. We generally cant imo.

And because Burrow and Sinfield have been forced to cover 9 for Leeds doesnt mean they should act as in that role for GB when there are other specialist hookers out there in the SL. Annoys me a little bit as im sure you gather!

Would you have had Higham on the bench in place of McGuire then Dave?

: Thu Oct 23, 2008 10:44 am  

Big Dave T wrote:

Thing is the Aussies can do it and get away with it. We generally cant imo.

And because Burrow and Sinfield have been forced to cover 9 for Leeds doesnt mean they should act as in that role for GB when there are other specialist hookers out there in the SL. Annoys me a little bit as im sure you gather!

My point is they will be doing a job that they do for their clubs most weeks so they might not be out and out hookers but it still enabled Leeds to win the GF

Imo the only hookers anywhere near good enough for Eng are Roby, Cunnungham and Newton. Possibly Higham and Diskin aswell. However KC is retired, Newton is injured and TS decided that Higham/Diskin were not required. There is no one else out there imo.

Also remember that TS worked with Burrow, Diskin, McGuire and Sinfield at Leeds and used to interchange them at hooker so he knows his players and their capabilities better than anyone else.

I did gather btw, I am debating with ''most argumentative poster of the year'' afterall

: Thu Oct 23, 2008 10:46 am  

Big Dave T wrote:

I'd prefer people like Alker for work rate than Diskin.

No comparison, that why Diskin plays for Leeds and Alker for Salford.

Alker was a decent player about three years ago, and should have moved to a bigger club or the NRL (where he had an offer). He now doesnt look the player he once was.

Most Salford fans think he may end up at LF as he is too slow for hooker now.

: Thu Oct 23, 2008 10:46 am  

knocker norton wrote:

Would you have had Higham on the bench in place of McGuire then Dave?

Yes, im a 100% behind having 2 specialist hookers in the 17 unless one can play 80 mins like Berrigan!

FWIW ideally i would have Roby on the bench and start with a more solid hooker but we dont have one. Would still prefer Roby on the bench with Higham starting though.

: Thu Oct 23, 2008 10:48 am  

PAUL M wrote:

My point is they will be doing a job that they do for their clubs most weeks so they might not be out and out hookers but it still enabled Leeds to win the GF

Imo the only hookers anywhere near good enough for Eng are Roby, Cunnungham and Newton. Possibly Higham and Diskin aswell. However KC is retired, Newton is injured and TS decided that Higham/Diskin were not required. There is no one else out there imo.

Also remember that TS worked with Burrow, Diskin, McGuire and Sinfield at Leeds and used to interchange them at hooker so he knows his players and their capabilities better than anyone else.

I did gather btw, I am debating with ''most argumentative poster of the year'' afterall

Leeds would be a better team with a 2nd hooker. Therefore, not sure how the options used above make GB a good team when the option of a 2nd hooker is there!