I honestly think its a joke that people even question his fitness. Last season he was one of the highest rated players at the club during pre-season fitness wise and I wouldnt expect this year to be any different. His legs might be gone(not that he ever was the fastest) but nothing wrong with his fitness.

It would be great to have an half with some pace and score the spectacular try or two but then if there was an half available like that he most likely wouldn't be coming to Fax as we couldn't afford him and he would rather be in SL even if we could.

So no half back to rip it up leaves us with a half who can lead from the front, organise and move the team round the park which is really his main job anyway.

Does Mozza fit the bill??????

Season too far IMO,especially with BJ as partner.

The penalty count is always against both teams.

It's one of the great mysteries of Rugby League.

I believe one of the reason RM let the other half backs at the club have a run out without Mozza in the warm up games was to see if they could successfully lead the team round the field without him so in that sense he gave them first chance and was still left unconvinced, which put him basically back to as we were or use dual reg.

I also believe RM did not take Mitch Clark specifically to keep a DR spot open for an half back.

We haven't got unlimited options and certainly can't buy our way to solving the varies problems, RM has given a lot of thought on how to do so with the cards he holds but there are going to be some gaps.

BJ took a heavy knock to the head on Sunday so we may see the next 6 and 7 pairing if he doesn't recover or pass the concussion test.

What worries me is getting the right combo to click even if we can find it can't take too long or we will be left behind.

Yes, that's how I read it and very true even though it's been a constant topic of conversation between coach and players.

In fairness, arguably the biggest asset of our threequarters is their dynamism at the play-the-ball when tackled - Briscoe, Robinson and Taulapapa have all been racking up the penalties in pre-season, they all take a bit of putting down and are very proactive at going for fast play-the-balls so I don't think you'll be the last team to concede a bunch of penalties around the ruck to us.

Absolutely, the term win the penalty comes to mind but it’s more accurate to say win the right to a quick play the ball in this setting and Rovers won the ruck fair and square through their energy and we couldn’t handle it again.

It's blatantly obvious to anyone who's ever tied a bootlace that MUrrell is carrying an extra few pounds this year around his waist. (Fev crowd certainly spotted it! ) It is bound to impact on his fitness and his speed levels although downhill at Batley he will be good! It's loose forward for me to allow for an extra pivot using his hands. To be fair he always has been a good defender and he showed he has still got that.
Fev game showed us the speed around the pivots and we were left chasing shadows with Ridyard who likewise anyone can see has lost a few pounds and really looked in good shape and a few yards quicker for his try.
Bottom line is with the dual reg we can see the difference in physical fitness whether they can play better or not.

Just watched it again and being a bit sad I counted - was 11-9 to Fev

Penalty counts are often wrong. Easy to forget to write one down.

You don't see them overstated. Always understated.

Ours was 11-9 last week. League Express said 11-8.

You usually find more often than not that the count to each side is not too dissimilar, it just depends on the stage of the game and the area you receive them in. Listening to the Fev game and following on Twitter as I was on nights we seemed to concede quite a few in the first half at times when we were putting pressure on.

Whatever we need to improve in this area.