I had to laugh, Most of the first hour someone near me was going on about how bad the team played and Briers was the only one out there doing anything good and how much he was running the game on his own

At the end of the game she declared that Bridge had been awesome all game and should have got MoM

Sorry I just don't get it with Bridge. To me he is a headless chicken with no on field discipline and poor reading of the game. He is better in the centres becasue that controls his lines but when he is at half back nobody knows what he is doing. I admit he potentially has real skills and good feet but I can't see him as a long term squad member, especially with his injury and discipinary problems.

What injury problems has he had this season?

Bridge for mine as well

None as far as I remmber - but I think his injury record speaks for itself. I hope he stays injury free but I wouldn't put a quid on it, would you?

What's wrong with his on-field discipline?

Seems incapable of sticking to the game plan for a lot of the time and does his own thing.

Amazing how we won the challenge cup then isn't it, you'd think three top quality coaches would have spotted this and targetted it.

Buffoons.

I can see that this isn't going to be a logical discussion but I think you'll find that there are not too many coaches fear him. If you watch the games and the videos you will see why I think he is like a headless chicken at times. If you don't agree with me OK. Lets put it this way if Gleeson was still at Warrington Bridge would not be playing centre regularly. If we had another half back I don't think he would play there either.

See you on the ice

I think people are bit off with Bridge to be honest.

For a start, he's made all told including CC Games, probably getting on for 30 appearances this year right, which given last year and that horrendous injury he had, is a massive achievement. You put that up against say Reardon who had the same injury, and he hasn't managed a game back yet, so I think Bridge must have worked bloody hard to get back, and then, to try and get back to some level of fitness & form which is required in SL as we see every week, if you're off it, even a tad, it shows you up.

Right, then there's the performances thing, in SL alone, 7 tries & 10 assists, I can recall him setting up tries in the QF, SF & Final too, at key moments, massive moments in fact, so that's a minimum 13 assists for the season, what's peoples problem ? Folk keep throwing Martin Gleeson back ? He's not Martin Gleeson, has he ever claimed to be, he's Chris Bridge, he does some things better than him, some things worse, fine. But the stats look fine to me.

Then folk say about his 'mood', well Gleeson was hardly enthusiastic during his tenure was he, certainly the last couple of years. If Bridge had such a bad attitude, he'd have been gone, FACT. There was one bloke in our squad who clearly had a bad attitude, and he was gone, pretty quickly at that too, so he can look as surly as he wants, he must knuckle down day in day out under Smith, because if he didn't, he wouldn't be here, FACT. Folk seem to make judgements about him all the time, based on how happy he looks during an 80 minute rugby game, folk should see my face at work.

I don't think he's any sort of messiah, far from it. I think he's a good right centre who'll be another who'll benefit from an off-season, because last year must've been pure rehab, trying to get back from a horrific injury that folk seem to have forgot. He clearly lets himself down now & again off the field, and that could well in the end be his undoing, but he's not alone y'know.

I know I stick up for him on here, and it amuses some, and that's cool. I just think it's unfair the level of criticism he seems to attract, folk were fine when he was 'biscuit', now he's shed that tag, he's 'not Gleeson', or as Padders keeps saying "NL1 standard", when I think what he is in fact is a solid SL player, who's clearly got talent, has had his share of on & off field problems and like alot of others under Smith, appears to be using Che's arrival as a fresh start, re-building his career, and hopefully the best is yet to come. He's had a blemish since then, but that appears to have passed, but in the main, has done whatever Smith has asked of him, and been a key member with ball in hand & his goalkicking in us winning the Challenge Cup.

So how can you put 2 left centres in 2 centre positions?

You tell me, never said he was actually better.

I think the conundrum here is quite simply 5 doesn't go into 4!!

We have 5 players vying for 4 oustide positions:

Hicks
Atkins
Bridge
King
Riley

So, if Riley went (who I think is a wire through-and-through) then with Bridge and Atkins as centres would mean King on the wing. However, I think Kingy is much more effective as a centre.

In all honesty, this is a squad game and what a bench we would have. But would Bridge be happy as a utility player???

That said, the position was no different with Johnson in the squad - and Bridge was still getting in the first team.

So, where does that leave Bridge? My guess is a squad player - if he is happy with that. Also, cover will be needed for the inevitable injuries.

I'm sure Tony will be trying to convince all the playes that it is a team game with more dynamic interchanges for the backs as well as the forwards!!

Hopefully as a result both Bridge and Riley will stay.

A side issue of course is that we need to let good players go to get great players in. I'm sure all will be revealed in the near future...

youve also missed off kev "usain bolt" penny.

Have we signed Carney for next season???