Why was Lunt signed to sit on a bench for 80 mins or to be used as a relief back rower ? I thought the idea was to stop Burrow being used as an ineffective 80 min hooker ? His first game was impressive, but like others that have gone before him under our esteemed coach he seems to have gone backwards.

Why when our academy team is doing so well does McDermott continue to ignore them and double up old knackered regulars ? He compounds that by loading the backs with slow ponderous forwards. I suppose we should be grateful he selected BJB over Smith ...

Why do we see no evidence of any tactics, structure or inspiration? Either there is none in which case he is not doing his job and should be sacked.....or the players are ignoring him, in which case he has even less excuse for not dropping them and introducing the successful academy lads.

Is our CEO blinkered, afraid to swing the axe, or just a cheapskate ?

Why did this rambling nonsense require it's own, separate thread when you've made the same points a million times before in countless other threads?

To be fair to McDermott, with Watkins & Webb injured the only realistic choice for centre was either Delaney or Smith. To be honest, at the moment, I'd pick Delaney over Smith too.

its ( no apostrophe )

Another one determined to ignore the successful academy team. Not a lot of point having one really is there ?

Nope 'it's' is correct...a possessive apostrophe i.e. the thread of it.

Your needless nitpicking about grammar doesn't hide the fact that a very good point has been made... Is it really so necessary for you to say the same things over and over again on countless different threads? We get it, you want more kids in. Clearly McDermott doesn't. The simple answer to all of your questions is "Because he's the coach, and this is how he wants to do it. Whether he's right or wrong to make the decisions he does is a separate matter, however as the coach of a Grand Final winning side and a World Club Challenge winning side, I'm guessing he's more qualified than any of us to do his job.

How about we leave him to do just that, and perhaps save our judgements until the end of the season, rather than now, at a time when we are still in competition for two major trophies?

Nope ... Its ( no apostrophe ) is the possesive itself. The only time to use the apostrophe is when it's the abbreviation of it is ( or, it has ).

Hood and Ward have both had game time this year, Hardaker has been pretty much an ever present. It is happening, and will continue to happen, but the club will do it patiently and carefully, just as they did back in the day with Sinfield, McGuire, Burrow and co. Over the course of the next year or two we will almost certainly start to see Chisholm, Keinhorst, Singleton etc, perhaps nowhere near as quickly as you would like, but I for one believe that the people running this club have more than earnt the right to do things their way.

You're right about the apostrophe though, I'll give you that

Should we stop making criticisms of David Cameron too; at least until the end of his elected period? After all I guess he is more qualified to do his job.
Acolytes rule ok.

Maybe I should consult the terms and conditions of being a Southstander......

I simply do not want to see promising kids moving on through frustration at lack of opportunities, especially when that opportunity was an ideal one.

Grammatical nitpicking aside, when you yourself state that you cannot and would not attend games, how can you start to form a realistic opinion of the performance of the lack of "evidence of any tactics, structure or inspiration" from the "slow ponderous forwards" and our "ineffective 80 min hooker"?

So only those who personally witnessed the events of Heysel, Bradford or Sheffield can pass the worthwhile opinion then ?

Too many G1 wannabes on here methinks .

Well according to GH said last week ''its not a coaching issue'' so questions are not being asked in that area, at least not publicly. I think however GH has been around long enough to know that questions do need asking regarding the coaching of the team but he's keeping them 'in house' for now and probably until the season ends and the endorsement of McDermott last week was more to lift the guy's confidence rather than he actually meant it.

I'm not one for wanting loads of youngsters thrown in the team at once but i would of liked to of seen Keinhorst play based on the fact that several weeks ago he was described as being on the verge of a call-up and we had are 2 first choice centres injured/moved to FB, and in their place 2 Second Rowers. All be it both have plenty of experience there, but it will leave us a bit short in the back row for the next several weeks if both are played in the centres until Watkins and Webb return. Would you rather have a loanee hooker coming off the bench to play in the back row or give a chance to a promising young player in the centres and free up one of are natural back rowers to get back to the forwards.

Whilst i don't wish an injury on anyone it might be a good thing in the long run that Webb will miss several weeks as we can give Hardaker a run at FullBack. The question is now, if Hardaker impresses in the role over the next 6-7 weeks will McDermott stick with him there or revert right back to Webb as soon as he's fit again.