I agree Locke will play if fit and that’s the dilemma Harris has with Evalds as you surely can't leave him out? However if Locke manages to complete the 80 as he nearly did against Huddersfield having Evalds on the bench becomes a waste of bench spot.

Selection head ache for Mr Harris.

I meant only if Evalds was on the bench and a hooker option was called for and not a long term move or solution.

I agree Edwards was unique and one of the hardest players I've seen in a Salford shirt, ploughed himself into the ground every time I saw him play.

Wigan are likely to be something along the lines of:

Bowen
Charnley
Gelling
Sarginson
Manfredi
Williams
Smith
Flower
Powell
Crosby
Farrell
Bateman
O'Loughlin

Clubb
Taylor
Dudson
Tomkins

Sunday was one of the worst games I've seen us play for some time, hoping for a backlash, but with how you guys have been playing recently I can see it being a close game.

Jason Walton covers the back positions as well as the second row, so why have a second back on the bench? That's why, for me, Locke and Evalds is an 'either/or', not an 'and'.

As for not being sure about Steve Rapira, you need to look at the way he's playing now, not how he was at the start of the season. He came to us after spending most of the last three years lying on the treatment table. He clearly wasn't fit and was only used in short spells. Now, as he regains that fitness and the confidence in his own abilities, we're seeing what a brutal forward he is. In the old days, he would have been referred to as a 'bruiser', and we haven't had one of those since...I don't know...Dennis Boyd in the 1980s maybe.

The questions then are Locke [ior[/i Evalds, and Tommy Lee and/or Logan Tomkins. If Iestyn goes for both Tommy Lee and Logan Tomkins, one of the forwards would need to drop out, and I doubt that would be Steve Rapira. Not sure who it would be though.

I'm not too keen on having Wigan's coach on our bench, by the way.

"I'm not too keen on having Wigan's coach on our bench, by the way."

Lol fair point!


I don’t think we can class Walton as cover for outside backs, he has been caught out quite a few times due to his lack of pace and I just feel he is better as a strong running second row.

I think we can go round in circles about which forward to leave out, some people will have different view points on certain players.

Next question, what happens if you throw Dixon in the mix? Who would take preference then?

God I love these problems!

I agree, I think Jason Walton's future is in the second row, but he provides cover for the centres. Nowadays, coaches tend to go for a bench full of forwards, and you rarely see out and out backs on the bench unless the coach is forced to go for that because of injuries. The ideal player, then, is someone like Jason Walton who can cover both forwards and backs.


At the moment, Steve Rapira (and Tony Puletua) seem to operate more as props than second rowers, so, if Andrew Dixon comes back before the end of the season, my guess is that it wouldn't be in place of either of those. I don't know who it would be in place of though.

Overall, one of the (quite nice) problems we have is that, as it stands, we've probably got too many back row forwards for next season:

Gareth Hock
Harrison Hansen
Weller Hauraki
Matty Ashurst
Andrew Dixon
Steve Rapira
Tony Puletua
Jordan Walne
Jason Walton
George Griffin
Will Hope

and probably not enough front rowers (although Rapira and Puletua tend to play like front rowers). I suspect some of them will be leaving at the end of the season. In fact, someone is going to have to go because, unless Marwan's got an exemption rabbit to pull out of a hat, we appear to have one non-fed player too many.

We'll just have to wait and see.

Sarginson had a shocker, and personally I don't think centre is his best position. But Darrell Goulding is injured again and Iain Thornley is still a couple of weeks away, so we don't really have another option unless someone like Jack Hughes or John Bateman gets put in there. Joel Tomkins is another option but I think he'll only play half an hour or so off the bench for his first game back.

and probably not enough front rowers (although Rapira and Puletua tend to play like front rowers). I suspect some of them will be leaving at the end of the season. In fact, someone is going to have to go because, unless Marwan's got an exemption rabbit to pull out of a hat, we appear to have one non-fed player too many.

We'll just have to wait and see.

Clutching at a very big straw but because Hauraki was at the celts when they folded will he count as exept or as he had 1 to many moves since

Rapira the new Paul Forber.

You'd not class any of those back row forwards as worth really getting rid of so it's going to be a difficult choice picking who goes. More and more seems odd the choice to bring in Hauraki for me. I hope that George Griffin proves to be the find his brother has been over the last few weeks, given his chance and made himself pretty much undropable.

Fitness is the big issue with players coming back from Union, and I think Joel will get a run out. It's tough though because it means you have to keep a replacement too, as we've found out with Locke. It means a bench spot is taken up with their replacement or vice versa.

Has Tomkins played a game in the lower level since he came back?

Might be a blessing for us if he does get named on the bench.

Given the four day turn around and the fact that you seemed to spend most of last Sunday defending, it would seem a bit of a high risk option to then have a player in the team who isn't likely to spend more than 30 minutes on the field. Surely, Shaun Wane wouldn't do that would he?

If we go with 4 forwards on the bench then we can probably afford to ease Tomkins in, plus Bateman and Farrell are more than capable of big minutes. Joel will be lacking match fitness but he looks in excellent nick and bigger than ever and I can't wait to see how he goes.

Our problem has been at 6 and 9 with Green and McIlorum out. Powell and Williams are both quality youngsters but it's been a big ask for them to fill in for 2 key players over a long period. Both have had to play 80 minutes and we've been swapping them round mid-game and I'm not convinced it's been working, particularly against decent opposition.

All this talk about Locke tickles me. He is probably a decent player if (when) he is fit. But he couldn't get into the Warriors side because he wasn't fit. He's turned out twice now for SRD, not finished either match and is clearly still not fit. One day he might be, in which case he should be available to be selected. But to put Evalds on the bench just in case Locke can't make a full match would be senseless. It's a waste of a bench player and an interchange. Apart from which, I don't think Locke provides much, if any more, than Evalds.

The sooner we understand that home grown doesn't mean inferior, the better the chance we have of succeeding.