Quote: Aboveusonlypie "Players get a chance when there is a vacancy in the team. In Jack Hughes case there was a vacancy at 4, there wasn't one at SR because Faz was there. If the coach thinks he is the best option available to him then he picks him there, because his job is to win games. The player would rather play anywhere just to get in the team, rather than wait for a chance in his preferred position. That chance may never come.
In Lomax's case Saints didn't move him to get experience they moved him because he was better than Wellens there. At the moment Hampshire is nowhere near as good as Bowen, pretty simple really. There is a vacancy at SO which Wane has given to Williams.
Gelling was never a winger. He came over as centre, but at the time Goulding and Carmont played there and because of injury there was a chance on the wing. Because of his attributes the coach thought he would be a better bet than the other candidates.
So on Thursday with Sarginson and Thornley out injured do you play Gildart a centre, who is clearly not ready, or do you play a seasoned pro (Tomkins or Charnley) out of position - thus weakening their usual position - or do you pick a youngster (Bateman) with more experience of first team, who doesn't usually play centre. Not easy being a coach is it??'"
Yeh agreed there is only certain positions that have become available but the players being changed for that position don't fit in my opinion.
I just dont understand some of the changes.......and on sunday was the prime example.
How could Lomax be better in that position until he played there?
If Bowen as such bad knees then he wont play at Widnes but lets all be prepared for Hampshire to make mistakes that could cost us the game is positional play at full back was all wrong and he was tormented by Wilkin and I can see Kev Broen doing the same.
I do see why Wane is putting Hampshire there for his speed etc but I think there is more to him than just that.