And here we go again. Leeds lose and it's back to slating the coach...

that game against catalan doesnt give our lads the biggest kick up the nothing will and think castleford will come hard but that's just the type of game we need. they did same to wigan in catalan and the came back . two games to have a go at league leaders but already in the semis bring it on

Losing away to Catalans is very different to scraping a home win against a 3rd string Hull side. We've had two very tough fixtures since Wembley. The rot will stop against Cas

And of course you do. Pray tell?

I don't have the answer, I am not paid to do that. But I certainly wouldn't go into games with an half at hooker, and only one half back. That is a nonsensical approach, In My Opinion, and voiced before the selection.

Yes I am concerned with Wigan, whilst I don't think they are the best team in the competition, they are past masters at spoiling and slowing the game down.
So could quite easily turn us over.
I always remember one of rugby playing pals, someone asked him if he was a good player.
Not especially he replied, but I could stop the players who were good.

Well you are not paid to be critical either so if you are going to rubbish the professional coaches choices as "[inonsensical[/i" you should at least offer a sensible solution yourself albeit as an amateur. If you [i"certainly wouldn't go into games with an half at hooker"[/i then the only alternative would be to start with an untested academy hooker who the coaches think is not ready yet. Unless of course your sensible solution is to play a back row forward there.

Given that we lost both our first choice hookers and our 2 reserve half backs (Burrow doubles in both positions) the coach had to decide either to move Sinfield from 6 to 9 (as he is experienced up to England level as a 9) or play an untested academy 9 who he obviously does not believe is ready for these important fixtures. A typical hooker these days is a really a half back that can tackle anyway.

I can see some logic in such circumstances for playing an extra forward in certain games or for the first 30 minutes say but to play only one halfback can only be regarded as an emergency measure and so IMO if we are to blood a youngster it is less critical to be one of two halves than a solo novice hooker. But the coach has been dealt a series of injury blows to key personnel with 3 first teamers out for the season with a 4th about to be added plus the recent loss of a further 2 key players (Burrow and Watkins) in key games has had a bad effect of the balance of the side.

What's the prognosis for Watkins? Anyone know?

You seem to be making up a lot of assumptions there to form an opinion, yet don't seem to be allowing me one.

I may not get paid to be critical, but I pay enough money into the club to be allowed to voice a criticism, that is not debatable.

Your view is that the back up hooker is untested, and my view is that is the fault of the coach. But regardless of that I don't accept he is any more untested than Lilley, who he played against Catalans and Saints, or Golding who he played against Saints. What is really the case, is he doesn't think Ward is up to it fullstop, not untested.

He may well be right on Ward of course, but is it better to go with a specialist hooker playing it tough for this level, or disrupting your whole team plan by sticking a finger in the air and hoping something works? My solution, of which I am not paid to make is that you go with the specialist hooker.

That doesn't mean to say that Sinfield is not up to the role, but whilst you can't replace Sinfield in an even more important role in the team, to me it is the only option. And besides this, Sinfield does not give us the speed form dummy half that we have relied on all year to get the best out of the forwards, so in effect you are actually effecting two important elements of your team play.

I don't think any team bar possibly us will go through the next 4 games unbeaten.

So insinuating we lost because the coach doesn't know what to do isn't slating him? Classic Southstander.

He does know what to do though and yes he's come up with the right alternative, he usually does. It's why we win so many trophies, are top of the league and on course for a possible treble.
Unfortunately the first choice after the injured Aiton, Rob Burrow, is also injured so he was forced to put Sinfield there, a player who's won MOM awards whilst playing hooker for England.

A few on here were, not sure if you were one of them, were saying that Ward isn't up to it only a few weeks ago.. Our coach, after giving him a shot, obviously agrees.

Not sure what else he can do short of gambling with someone like Keinhorst. Except he's injured too...

No, I have not insinuated that at all. I have said he doesn't know what is the solution, not he doesn't know what to do. You said that.




So now he does know what to do? what relevance does the top of the league have to do with the point made? the point made was about losing Aiton and the replacement, you know the player who was instrumental in getting to the top of the league.




That's not true though is it? Burrow was available for Wigan at home, Hull away, and the Cup Final, and yet wasn't the answer. So no, this is only about Aiton, and the solution to his loss.




I can't make a judgment on Ward as he hasn't been afforded enough opportunity for me to do that. I know he looked good in the under 19's, and I know he has played in the championship numerous times, and held his own. And more importantly, I know he is a speciality hooker. And that is all I am making my opinion on. But I do agree you last point, that the coach obviously feels he is not up to it.



Your not sure what he can do? yet you have a go at me for stating the coach has not come up with a solution yet. This based on the point that Sinfield isn't working, and it effects the teams structure in the halfs by doing it. Whether Ward is up to it or not, until Burrow is back, he is a better option than disrupting the team the way we are going, in my opinion.

Oh give it a rest 7.2021484375:10