Meh.

It was a great win but again we subbed JP for Mcshane and then Moore only got 3minutes after H/T before getting subbed when he was going ok.
Then when we kicked the last penalty JP and jjb were visibly knackered it may not catch up in 2/3 weeks but imo why have a 17 man squad and not use it?
Just to clarify no-one should come "for the sake of it" b=ut at the same time why select a sub "foro the sake of it" because lets be honest it was alwasy gonna be a tough close game.

You needn't have worried! It didn't matter to you in the end as our forwards have decided that they did enough by bullying Huddersfield the other week so they thought they'd have a few weeks off. They've been dreadful over Easter after being so good in the snow the other week.

Your pack won that game tonight though bossing ours.

He should have brought Singleton on for a myriad of reasons other than "for the sake of it"

I could be wrong but I thought Moore got 1 stint from the bench.

Again, there was what appeared to be another example of peacock refusing to be subbed by his coach. Kylie came to the touchline, vest off paper in hand but Peacock was having none of it. Kylie returned to the dug out, a minute later re-appearing on the touchline but this time to replace Clarkson.

Peacock and Kylie were excellent tonight and we won the game but, IMO, MvcDermott's substitution policies are a complete chaotic mess.

We had so much ball in the first half hour of the game and our completion and discipline was so good that it allowed Peacock, and Kylie in particular to do longer first stints than usual due to not being over worked in defence.From that point onwards it was almost inevitable that Singleton would be an unused sub.

Moore was solid in his stint and i would bet he would have done a second spell if needed rather than use Singleton last night.

Kylie looks to be having a great year. Seems to be really enjoying his rugby in his final season.

Maybe he will do another year.Certainly looks to have it in him.

Or he might have decided this is it, enjoying the experiences and giving everything knowing he doesn't have to go around again. But from current form both our aging props are doing the business

Regarding when to use Singleton, you should use your rookie player early in the game, and give them a bit of confidence, and to get a feel for the game.

If they do strugle then there is plenty of time to rectify the situation.

If the coach wants to leave him on the bench and give him a chance when the game is safe then leaving him on the bench is the best option if the game being safe does not occur

Surely the question is why can't the coach trust Singleton (or Moore)? I mean, do we think he can't come on because he's some fekk up waiting to happen? In which case why is he in our Academy let alone near our first team?

FWIW, Ben Currie (one of Warrington's better forwards yesterday) is two years younger than Singleton.

IMO, it's not about when you can or can't "risk" introducing a player it's about our coaches lack of trust in certain players. Either those players are simply not good enough to sik in a first team fixture (which I can't believe given the history of and resources devoted to our Academy) or the issue lies with the coach.

I think people are searching for excuses here. "You can't trust player A at that point because we're winning, you can't trust player A at this point because we're not winning". People have often defended Kirke against my criticisms by saying his role is simply to give Peacock a rest. I don't buy that as an excuse but if that really is a role for one of our 17 first teamers than why can't Singleton (or Moore) do that?

I bet McDermott was concerned that having not been penalised for the first 30 minutes or so, Moore's second involvement in the game was to concede our first penalty.

I thought Moore was unfortunate with that penalty. The Warrington player (can't remember who it was) did their usual attempt to steal ground at the play the ball by flopping forward into the tacklers who were trying to get out of the way.

There are certain players in the competition - and we saw an absolutely perfect example last night in Mickey Higham - who seem to think that the mark is an irrelevance and they should be allowed to tunnel another couple of yards forward before playing the ball.

For what it's worth to you .....I wholeheartedly agree.

Whatever the virtues of our head coach he does appear very blinkered when it comes to his selections and chances given. It makes you wonder how much he might have been leaned on to blood and regularly select Stevie Ward (even if he still resists playing him in the LF position).

Totally agree with your second point, Saints are always the worst offenders in that regard.
But I do think Moore had a second effort & don't criticise Child's for awarding the penalty.
I thought he was very sensible in his policing of the PTB & that he got the "knock-on" call that lead to Myler's try spot-on.

For all his faults, Kirke is a safe bet. He doesn't make mistakes, he doesn't miss tackles and he rarely gives away penalties. He may not take the ball in as much as wanted, but he is a known quantity, and one that the coach, and the previous coaches have all trusted.

I know nothing about singleton, but it could be that he has a loose carry, or is leaden footed in defence, or is prone to giving away penalties. Or some other reason which made the coach think that throwing him on at the wrong time was not the right call.