I was responding directly to Pete, who clearly does not like the idea of rotation. I have no problems with rotation myself.

Anderson was very successful at rotating our props in 2006 when we had five first line props. I would have liked to see that happen this year, plus some back row rotation when we have the likes of Dixon who is very capable of filling in. Rotating centres and wingers is a cookie idea, although in royces defence I think he was doing it to work out our best team composition as much as resting players. Let's face it, there is still a lot of questions to be answered about our back line, and they aren't bring answered by sticking to the same team every week.

Utter rubbish, ive nothing against rotation if the is a reason for it. I don't see the point in super Royce swapping and changing makinson, Ade, foster on the wings every week and I don't see the point on rotating centre like necessary doing with Meli and wheeler.

Centre and wing partnerships are built on experince of playing with each other, look at the Lyon and Albert duo, it es like Albert could read Lyons mind, that's no fluke, it comes from playing together and under Royce it was effecting the centres and wingers.

Halfback pairing is another postion that should rarely but touched unless needed as they also need to build a understanding. (obviously if not playing well it needs to be changed)


Rotation for me is keeping players fresh, especially forwards and must not be mistaken for tactical changes.

Spot on. Dont mind a player missing a game to freshen up before the playoffs or run of big games but not on a week to week basis. The pivots need to generate an understanding but defensively you need to trust & know whose on youre shoulder.
Probably why we have looked vulnerable at times out wide with left centre/wing Meli/Wheeler/Jones bring chopped & changed for admittedly whole host of different reasons.

I'll be disappointed if Dixon goes because he does appear to have potential. If he can't get a game here though perhaps it's the best move for him and I wish him success if he does go.

I too like Dixon and he has shown a lot of promise. I'm at a loss to explain some of the signings and contract extensions that have been made over the last 12-18 months. Of course I'm not aware of what goes on in training etc but from what I've seen of Wilkin and Dixon over the last 12 months on the pitch and with an eye on the future I know who my four-year contract would have gone to.

I would like to see him go out on loan for a year to see how he develops. If at the end of it he isn't good enough, then fair enough let him go, but he hs enough potential to be given a chance.

That would be ideal. And it hasn't done Matty Smith's career prospects any harm, has it?

Perhaps a reason for Fosters drop in confidence and increased mistakes?

Done deal.

Like I said at the start of the thread next year there are too many players ahead of dixon. I'm all for growing our own, but sometimes the quality ahead is too much for them to break through in which case we need to move them on. Manu, Sia, TP, Wilkin, Flanaghan. It's too much for Dixon to break through that line up, only TP will drop out that line up any time soon. Dixon would have to wait some 3 to 4 years to become a starting 2nd rower and that's assuming we would not get anyone else coming through the ranks or buy someone else in.

He's not bad, just not good enough to replace the standard of player we will have next year in the back row.

In a way it raises the question of how long you have as an academy player to make the breaks through. I would argue that once you hit 22/23 if you are not making the team then you will not get another contract.

This is a funny one for me with Dixon, at the beginning of the season he was running in tries for fun then got dropped.....why?
Did I miss him being a hole in the defense or something?

I cant understand the logic of signing Flanagan but getting rid of Dixon.

For me Flanagan epitomises the word journeyman.

Flanagan tackles hard but so far i have yet to see him offer anything else.
It says a lot when the much maligned Chris Flannery hits him for six statistically speaking.

There is a good arguement for keeping dixon over flanaghan. However given that flanaghan has been signed, keeping both is not really an option when their wages could be better used in areas where we lack depth. I suppose it's just bad luck on Dixon's part that he is in an area where there is great strength in our team and he has been squeezed out. The flanaghan signing is another Royce thing though, we signed a back rower when we had adequate coverage there and if anything we are a little over subscribed this year.

I would not be too harsh on Flanaghan though as it's his first year in the team and has adapted much better than other individuals and much more quickly. Once again if we signed the wrong type of player for a position we have lots of strength in it's not their fault, if they are offered a contract they are going to take it even if there are 20 backrowers already.

I doubt it. It's just that the coaching staff changed.