At the time I couldn't be bothered picking them up on it BUT after the last three games, I feel compelled to raise the matter. Some tool on this board, and you know who you are, suggested that Rob Burrow offers NOTHING to this team.........Hang your head sunshine!

Yes you are quite right to raise this. There were several others too who were too quick to write off RB and his unique skill set with their "proper hooker" mantra. Aiton had a fine season and was a real positive for Leeds but when he was injured his contribution, though strong, was totally overblown. For some he was the only reason for Cuthbertson and the teams's success.

When we hit the post Wembley blues the reason given by some was the absence of Aiton without giving thought to the absence of Burrow in these three games (plus Watkins & Hardaker in 2)

So will these same critics now acknowledge the crucial role Burrow has played, as a hooker, kicker and 80 minute player, in winning all our matches since his return from injury?

The silence from the keyboard warriors is deafening!

He has come back from injury and played some fantastic rugby but he still isn't a hooker. If we had a hooker ,Burrow could have been just as effective from the bench without forcing our centres to defend much further in field.

He's a very good player that has done very well covering.

Glad to say i wasn't one of them



Have to say though, long term i still think we are better off with a traditional 9, however i never really had a doubt Burrow would step up for the last few games this year when we needed him to, the guy is a true big game player and has proved it time and again.

Positions aside I think when comes to the big games any team in SL would want Burrow in their 17.

Burrow has been very good since coming back from injury and has helped us find a way to win our last three games. That doesn't alter the fact that we've played our best rugby this year with a traditional hooker defending the middle and Burrow coming off the bench.

I've critisised Burrow, and at the time it was justified, however his current form has been excellent. People are allowed to be wrong about things you know.

His kicking game on Saturday was fantastic, but he wasn't alone on that front all our kickers were on form, often finding the big gaps and giving our chasers time.

So you weren't wrong. You expressed an opinion based on what you saw at the time. That's neither right nor wrong, it's your opinion.

Although opinions do at times seem to be verboten in the eyes of some posters, unless they collude entirely with their own.

The statements I am referring to were not opinions about form or position and in any event, everyone has a right to an opinion. However, if you make a statement and that statement is not only wrong but more than disrespectful to a very good player, don't be surprised if someone pulls you up on it.

Someone, and they know who they are, stated categorically that Burrow was finished and offered nothing to the Leeds team. That may have been their opinion then and, although I suspect very much otherwise, it may still be.

R E S P E C T.......it was due then and still is now.

So when does an opinion become a statement? And who defines which players we are or aren't allowed to talk in negative terms about?

Some people were questioning Ryan Hall's form at the back end of the season and speculating whether he should be rested. Was that disrespectful to a player who has scored 200 tries for the club?

Some people have questioned what Josh Walters offered to the side at various times during the season, but presumably he's fair game because he hasn't "earned" the "respect" that makes you immune from criticism?