Thought it was just me that felt quite depressed seeing Ratchford named ahead of Leyland. Clearly not based on these comments. I wouldn’t mind so much if Leyland had been average preseason but he was our standout player in both games with a far better kicking game and looking pretty lively with ball in hand. As others have said, playing Ratchford is a retrograde step and quite un-Burgess like given his confidence in Holroyd, Lindop etc. Very disappointing

There was a group sat near me calling him fit to burn, which I attributed to dark fruits commentary. But it cropped up on page 5 of this too.

It’s tough to measure the front row at the moment, as it’s clear that the intention is for the backs to do the heavy lifting with yardage. But Vaughan is still head and shoulders the best prop we have in my opinion.

He is, without doubt.

My thoughts Ratch was most probably picked ahead of Leyland for his goal kicking, we must of anticipated a rusty performance in a low scoring game where two/four points could make the difference, also he has tons of experience and a calm figure in the squad as previously mentioned. I would like to see Leyland given a chance but that is up to him now to snatch that shirt away from Ratch and impress in training.

People having a pop at Musgrove for only doing 15 minutes need to realise it's the coach who decides when he comes on and when he gets taken off.

I'm sure Sam has his reasons, but I think he has made a mistake here. He will probably double down on it next game too. He also has a massive blind spot with Musgrove who is our biggest waste of an overseas spot since, well, Dan Russell. Musgrove has Sitaleki minutes without the Sitaleki fireworks.

But Sam got the Lindop call right. That centre position should be Lindop's to lose now. I'm not sure how much more he can do to earn the place.

The coaches monitor the telemetry and the impact on the field. I don't think players get taken off if their performance is still strong. Musgrove has had ample opportunity to show his worth and for me, he hasn't shown to be very effective at all. But I am just a casual observer so probably missing something.

I think everyone was gobsmacked by the decision to leave Leyland out. I'm also surprised by how little time in the pitch he allows Musgrove to have. I can only guess that Sam is looking at defensive duties. I can't think of any other reason.

I can't quite get my head around the Ratchford decision either, I just assumed at the time that Leyland had a knock. I don't quite buy into the more hyperbolic statements about how bad he was - he certainly made a few very important defensive interventions - but he clearly shouldn't be the first choice halfback and Leyland and Hayes will be the future so get them in the team.

Leyland’s goal-kicking was superb in the pre-season friendlies so it can’t have been that. I’ve no idea what he is like in training but he had two good games pre-season (I didn’t catch the Whitehaven game but by all accounts he did well). Strange decision.

Just reading Sam's post-match quotes. On the Ratchford/Leyland call, he says: "It’s just the way I felt on selection day. It was hard to choose between them but I went with a bit of experience. Oli’s been awesome and would have done a very good job for us, so it’s a tough one. Oli’s handled himself really well and has been a really good pro."

Not really sure what to make of that. Yes, you can make a case for going with experience, but it seems quite un-Sam-like, given his previous willingness to give youth a chance. Perhaps there was a bit of sentimentality involved, regarding Stef? I just assumed that Stef would have a 'bits and pieces' kind of role on the fringes of the team this season, but maybe Sam sees it differently? Either way, the onus is on Stef to prove that he deserves to keep the jersey.

IIm a very simple person ... in my opinion the only way to decide whether Sam Burgess made the right decision is to look at the score line .. We won ... Therefore he picked the right team for the game