Definitely looked a charter, would say it would be nowhere near as comfortable as a typical Jet2 737, and probably 10/20 minutes slower too, especially important when every minute matters.

Travel timeline is well set out from the official club twitter feed, looks a tiny plane too.

If this was a "week off" then why not rest more players and let the second string make a play for the remaining games, why risk injury to the rather thin squad we have if we weren't going all out to win?

If we were then shame on the players for getting tonked.

Why should they change their plans after winning their last four games in Perpignan doing exactly the same?

It was a chartered plane by the RFL for the club! Hope that helps you look for a reason for the defeat! Club went to the same hotel to rest up/massage etc as they always do! Only difference was it was a 50 seater rather than a jet2 150 seater

I wasn't looking for a reason, otherwise I would have said it. We lost because we were lazy and poor, not because of a plane. I also don't accept McDermotts comments after, there was no pride from some of the players.

The tactic of playing one half back was not forced on McDermott he chose to play that way - if Ward is not suitable there is one place to look, the coaching team. If they haven't been able in a year to get him to a suitable standard then they need to look at themselves.

If anything costs McDermott it will be two things: lack of depth in the squad and an over reliance on the older players/reluctance to use youngsters. Handley showed when given a run they can perform.

Or even just try Moon at hooker vs Cas, see how that goes. Got good hands, could run from dummy half, strong in defence.

So you deem Ward who is a hooker, not ready to play yet you propose playing Golding who does not play 6 or 7 in the Academy in one of those key positions?
You may be right but that is a major gamble & could be perceived as being somewhat bizarre.

Firstly it is the coaches who deem Ward not ready yet. What little I have seen of him gives me no reason to disagree with the coaches. I am not sure that we need an inexperienced hooker to play just a few minutes from the bench unless you think he is capable of starting to allow Sinfield to revert to standoff? So in the absence of a suitable 9, assuming Burrow is still not fit, then the only alternative to playing Mags on his own at halfback is to risk Lilley or Golding. I would prefer Golding.

Secondly the heavy workload a hooker has to do is quite different to a half back so IMO the risk of throwing in a novice at 9 is far greater than in one of the halves.

Thirdly Golding learnt his rugby as a scrum half and has not only been deemed ready for some first team experience but has acquitted himself very well in difficult circumstances recently and has shown the mental toughness that is needed. So it is not because he is not good enough to play 6 or 7 in the academy but rather he has the extra skill to play f/b too.

Fourthly if Mags undertakes the major role he will have a junior assistant with pace, good hands and feet as a link. Whereas R Ward would be on his own at acting halfback.

Not an ideal scenario but we need to score more points than Cas so I would go with the extra attacker.

It has been suggested that Moon play at 6 but although I am sure he would aquit himself well this would leave a major problem at centre especially if Watkins does' make it. We need our first choice backs in their usual positions to have a chance of regaining our free flowing match winning style. With that in mind if no Watkins then I would bring in Handley on the wing and Briscoe to centre and move Ablett back into the pack.

If this is too bizarre for you what are your suggestions?

I think that Lilley getting picked yesterday (and giving a fairly reasonable performance in the circumstances) I can't see Golding suddenly getting in ahead of him now.

I think McDermott obviously wasn't keen on starting Burrow at hooker judging from his substitute selection vs Wigan and HKR. However if/when Burrow returns I think he will now just go back to that. It had its flaws but we've also won a GF, CC and WCC with him starting there so we know we can still be successful with that selection.

You could well be right and Lilley looks a good prospect but I would go with Golding for this one.

If Burrow is fit then I agree he should start at 9. Sinfield is now not physically up to an 80 minute 9 and I would sooner see him go out dictating play than running himself into the ground at 9.

I don think their's anything wrong with Sinfield's performances at hooker. If we named him there and had Sutcliffe still available to play in the halves I think we'd ok.