Pretty close. When fit I would start Joel in 2nd Row with Bateman replacing Pettybourne on bench. Would also have maybe Sam Powell on bench instead of Goulding/etc but might depend on opposition/conditions etc;

Forgot all about Joel Tomkins!

It was a genuine question to him, its difficult to know who would get in, in front of who when there are that many to pick from.

I'd go:

FB 1 Bowen
RW 2 Charnley
RC 23 Sarginson (Maybe Thornley depending on form but he's out for the year so hard to say, he was playing well)
LC 5 Gelling
LW 32 Burgess
SO 6 Green
SH 7 Smith
P 8 Taylor
H 9 McIlorum
P 10 Flower
SR 11 Joel
SR 12 Farrell
LF 13 O'Loughlin

S 17 Crosby
S 19 Powell
S 24 Clubb
S 25 Bateman

I'm sure in reality Pettybourne would make the 17 as he always has but he's yet to win me over to be honest. He just seems to come on, play up to the crowd for a bit, then 10-15 minutes later he's off and you're hard pushed to remember him doing anything bar a big hit every few games

That rule was in place for decades until they changed it so how do you explain that?

Clubs also had to submit players to RFL medics as well if asked. That's a fact.

Just how did the RFL decided Saints put out a weak side v Bradford a few seasons ago to the extent they tried to fine them for it? Guesswork?

It's you who is being unrealistic that this rule can't be enforced. You don't even have to have a named first choice 1st 17 to enforce the rule of you must put out your strongest side.

Why? Because it doesn't take a genius to spot an under strength side does it!

In a league with P&R there is good reason to bring this rule back. Another good reason to avoid claims of match fixing. If you can't see the connection between those two things and requiring a side to field its strongest side it's time to give up.

As I've said, in the extreme cases I agree it is easy to spot. But it is not the extreme cases we are discussing, despite the fact you keep bringing that up.

You are arguing that a rule should be in place whereby a coach must put out his strongest team every week. That is simply not feasible.

With regards to medics, you are conveniently ignoring the point I made about minor injuries that could take as little as a day to get over.

Of course I understand the importance of coaches "doing the right thing," especially with relegation coming back, but my point is that it would be extremely difficult to enforce this rule on a week to week basis.

The term "strongest team" is subjective anyway.
A top player can lose form and be pretty dreadful for a period and he could be replaced by a player who's reputation is nothing like the man he replaces.
The fact that the replacement is in top form and playing extremly well would make him a part of the strongest team available.
The rivals of the next up opponents may claim that because "N" is being left out the coach isn't playing his strongest team. A couple more changes like that could, in their opinion, validate their claims.
I do like the squads being announced two days prior to the game.
To me it's a better system than the NRL where they seem to announce their squads on Tuesday no matter when their next game maybe. That's how I understand their system.

Spot on re. the term strongest team.

In the NRL they name their actual line-ups a day or two before the game.

IMO the coach should have the right to pick whatever side he sees fit. We get the 19 man squad before hand and we know which the important games are so it's not like there's any really excuse to be suprised. It's a very bruising campaign aand realistically we do need to rotate the squad if we want to have a chance in both cups. Plus I'd rather our young lads debut against Widnes, Hull KR etc as Burgess and Hampshire did than get thrown in the deep end when injuries hit as Murphy did (Ok that was his second game but you get my point).

Overall I think this will become a far smaller issue when the new system comes in next year as teams won't have the security of knowing it's an 8 team play off, allowing them to lose the odd game

In my opinion the coach does what's right for his team. It may be harsh on Bradford that we've fielded a strong team against them and a weaker team against Wakefield but it was in our best interests to do so with 3 games in 7 days.

Why not? That rule existed for decades and was taken as read.



Being hard to enforce doesn't mean you should not have the rule. It's not that hard to enforce it anyway. I am not sure what your point is/was about minor injuries but whatever it was I don't see what minor injuries have got to do with a team fielding an obviously reserve grade side and so being asked to explain why.