[quote="Exeter Rhino":n0yrxjcr]Thoughts on individuals: Connor showed his class, albeit on a flat track. It will be interesting to see if he can play well across a season, and against the top sides. Hall slotted back in like it was 2017 again. Handley at centre. Not sure about this. Not many running chances and I don't see him as a creator. Connor at centre would make more sense if he's prepared to put the work in. Sivo. Had a nice break from deep but lacked the pace to finish himself. Looked decent, but we will need to create opportunities out wide from close range - as with Hall. Croft & Frawley. Croft looked classy and Frawley looked dangerous with both ball in hand and kicking (!!!). Maybe he has been practicing with the boot. Palasia. Put in one big hit but was otherwise steady. Jury's out for me whether he's the prop we need. Jenkins. Carried the ball strongly, was my pick of the forwards (although Holroyd had a couple of good runs), although he wasn't on long. He reminded me of Peacock in the way he carries the ball - but not getting carried away! Cam Smith. Put in a good shift work wise but he's still killing plays... One of the worst moments in the game was when another player had obviously overun him, Smith stops, and then carries on anyway and gives away an obstruction penalty - WTF? Can we just use him as a middle and stop him passing unless it is a simple off-load? Sinfield. I thought he looked sharp, and contrary to what has been written by others, looks like he might be able to step up and control the team given the right opportunity in 2025. Lisone - got the crowd going by pumping his legs before running on to the ball but made limited impact ball in hand. Miller highlighted his improved defensive workrate I think in commentary. Ackers - played most of the game but didn't do much of note. Overall, not sure what to make of it. We looked in control in the first half but there could have been a lot more attacking threat. I expected a bit more physicality given what we keep hearing about Arthur's pre-season. Second half was a bit dismal. Bring in the kids by all means, but maybe throwing them all in wholesale at half-time was not the best way to do it? Not especially hopeful about the younger backs - none of them seems to have any pace and we were routinely burned on the outside by the Wakefield wingers and centres. Diskin actually looked pretty decent once he got over what otherwise might have been described as a debut worthy of the likes of Olpherts and Hooley.[/quote:n0yrxjcr] Surprised you didn't mention Oledski - he looked massively improved to me.

I think some of the improvement in Oledski and the pack in general just came from the front row being more balanced. I liked the new additions and was actually think it’s going to be nice to have competition for places.Sivo and Hall were good in yardage and will score plenty if we create. Connor did well but I think Arthur is doing the right thing keeping his feet on the ground. Jack went ok. O’Connor is unfortunate. Back row is the issue for me. I can just about get round Mcdonell and Bentley been the starters (although they’re a bit samey for me) but after Gannon I couldn’t tell you who the next back row in line is, certainly on the basis of the one friendly (I know it doesn’t work like that) none of the kids looked ready.

[quote="Barrie’s Glass Eye":240sw4un]I think some of the improvement in Oledski and the pack in general just came from the front row being more balanced. I liked the new additions and was actually think it’s going to be nice to have competition for places.Sivo and Hall were good in yardage and will score plenty if we create. Connor did well but I think Arthur is doing the right thing keeping his feet on the ground. Jack went ok. O’Connor is unfortunate. Back row is the issue for me. I can just about get round Mcdonell and Bentley been the starters (although they’re a bit samey for me) but after Gannon I couldn’t tell you who the next back row in line is, certainly on the basis of the one friendly (I know it doesn’t work like that) none of the kids looked ready.[/quote:240sw4un] Second row undoubtedly looks to be the position where we need to strengthen, but I think that won't be sorted till 2026 when I reckon one out of Bentley or McDonnell will move on. Personally, I believe that if Gannon can overcome his concussion and get a run in the side he has the ability to be better than either, but it's a big "if" at this stage.

[quote="ArthurClues":gmv3sgp9]Second row undoubtedly looks to be the position where we need to strengthen, but I think that won't be sorted till 2026 when I reckon one out of Bentley or McDonnell will move on. Personally, I believe that if Gannon can overcome his concussion and get a run in the side he has the ability to be better than either, but it's a big "if" at this stage.[/quote:gmv3sgp9] Agree wholeheartedly on Gannon Arthur, but even if that if happens the back row still looks light both physically and in terms of depth for me.

[quote="Barrie’s Glass Eye":2dwmmlyq]Agree wholeheartedly on Gannon Arthur, but even if that if happens the back row still looks light both physically and in terms of depth for me.[/quote:2dwmmlyq] Totally agree. I think the powerhouse type second row that would complete the transformation from also rans to pack to be feared is probably to be found in the NRL. That would require one of the two quota spots we might have free at the end of the year.