What you seem unable to live with is the chance your beloved Brian made a mistake.

The idea he picked the team for the weather is speculation and so flagging up some inconsistency in the selections in the side that took the field if that is how he picked it, is not a crime.

You said yourself in the Tim Smith thread that Smith was not suited to that sort of weather. That being the case and if Noble did consider other players with respect to the weather conditions, does that mean his opinion is different to yours as well? Could you possibly be disagreeing with Noble?

Dave

Hmm. Tomkins' game in the reserves may be have been based in running at the line, but he's shown only small glimpses in the first team. Very little in fact.


You know he didn't. I'm fairly sure he did.


Yes, but we played it tighter and safer than usual. There were few passes over ten yards, and many many one or two-up drives and short passes.


Tomkins and Ainscough are both wonderful players but the step-up to first team is not that simple. In those conditions you need the safest bets you have - and that was one of the most physical games I've seen in years - as proven by the number of players needing stitches post-match.

Ainscough goes looking for work, I agree. But last night was simply a case of slogging it out. His defence needs work and there was always a good chance he would be found out. Look at Webb's performance in the wet.

Sam - yes, could have done well against an unsure-footed defence. But would have been a potential weak link in defence. Stanley Gene one-on-one with Sam in torrential rain?

He is not a half back who's game is based on passing so it isn't unreasonable to suggest a TL 7, ST 6 partnership would have been better than the one we had and would have been a more "weather based" selection is what we think Noble was after.



I don't think he selected for the weather at all. He put Riddell into the side because that is what Noble does. Picks his senior players. I think the picked for the weather idea is just an excuse for him doing that.



I don't think that is strictly true. Smith was stood a fair distance away from the AHB all night. I don't think he changed his game at all to take account of the weather and I also don't think he can change it.



With respect to Tomkins I don't think there is anything to suggest he would have been a weak link. His tackling technique is spot on and has been praised on here before.

WRT to Ainscough his defensive frailties are over stated . He is actually a good 1 on 1 tackler from what I have seen and the focus seems to be he can't catch high bombs. I also do not think Roberts is anything like a strong defensive player himself nor particularly adept at dealing with bombs.

The problem we had on Friday was once we went behind I think everyone in that stadium knew we were not going to get back in front because our attack was blunt as it was early in the season. These two players may have faults in their games but they are not as glaring as people make out and their defensive stats compare well to players who people just do not focus on.

To be honest I think its a pity people will exaggerate these players (well Ainscough mostly) weaknesses simply to defend Noble.

Dave

I went to watch the reserves yesterday and Ainscough played the full game and Tomkins came on after half time and played the rest of the game..
My point being if Sam Tomkins was rested, why play him in the reserves the following day???? In my opinion this can only mean he was dropped..

I missed the first 25 minutes of the game so can't comment on how we played up until that point, but when I arrived HUll KR seemed to putting some pressure on us and along with some obscure ref decisions we didn't score again in the first half after being 10-0 up when I got there. In the second half Sam was introduced from the subs bench, what a difference, he chipped over the defensive line, chased through and regained posession and then passed to price and then onto ainscough to score. In another move Sam broke the line using great footwork and a powerful burst to get through the line were he unselfishly offloaded for someone else to score another. He again put price through who offloaded to Ainscough who ran a great arc behind him and raced under the posts. I am sure he was involved more tries but them are the ones I remember.. The point I make is that Sam changed the game and offered something different which the HUll Kr reserves couldn't contain. This guy is class and for me, shows no signs of weekness which other team could exploit(eg defence as some have elluded to). I think noble made a serious error in not keeping with a winning team in dropping Sam and shipping in Riddell who seems to be able to walk into the side, but offers very little.

What concerns me more than one result, is the message this sends to Sam, Ainscough and the rest of the reserves/Academy.

The major question is, Will Noble drop Riddell for next week against warrington at the expense of Sam T??

Rested usually means from first team action not from training or reserve team action. We have enough good players now to rotate the squad a little i am sure Sam will be back in soon as will Shaun its a matter of picking the right games and only the coaching staff know which they feel is the right games for them. After all they have a lot more experience at doing this than most on here.

Was the hull KR game, due to conditions not a game which we needed Sam T at least on the bench.. instead picking a player just back from injury who has at best had one decent game for us + if the squad is soo good wasn't given a run in the reserves first??


Maybe some pay too much respect to your comment above in bold.. but not me..

We looked devoid of any attacking idea when we were camped on their line for 2 stages on Friday in the 2nd half.

I know its very easy to become negative after a bad result... but again what message does it send to the sam's, shaun's and the rest of a youth setup, that as soon as an aussie comes back from injury who has done nothing, get into the first team at the expense of a player who has proved he is not affraid of the limelight and has performed consistently well over the games he has played in the first team. I could understand if Sam was like Smith and was a totally passing halfback, but his attributes were more than suited to the conditions on Friday... In my opinion you can add any excuse you want but Sam T should have been in the 17 and its a crying shame that "our great leader" couldn't see it...

However, we lost, so all your arguments are a little in vain.

And we did when we played Saints at home, therefore so are yours.

The truth is that nobody knows what would have happened if Sam and Ainscough would have played. WE may have won, we may have lost by more, we may have drawn the game.

So
Onwards and upwards.

Maybe.. but I think we would have seen us at our potent best(on the evidence of the last month), which is when LULU moves to dummy half and smith and tomkins play half backs.. but with no Sam T in the team this wasn't an option.....

And there is absolutely no difference between Saints and Hull KR.

Oh to live in such a simple world.

PS. Although we lost Ainscough scored 2 tries against Saints. If he had done that on Friday, we may have won.

If Noble was telling the truth in his duty of care line about Ainscough and that he rested Sam Tomkins we should see them both back in for the Wire game. Ainscough should get Carmonts place as he's cleary not fit and Tomkins should come back in for Riddell as we really do need his attacking spark and threat near the opposition line.

Team for Wire-

Richards
Roberts
Gleeson
Phelps
Ainscough
Smith
Leuluai
Fielden
McIlorum
Coley
Hock
Bailey
O'Loughlin

subs
Feka
Prescott
J Tomkins
S Tomkins

Thats a team that has a good threat about it and plenty of freshness from the 'rested' young players.

Well seeing as HKR beat Saints and ther'es only one point difference between them in the league table it would suggest so.

And if Ainscough had played we may not have won. Roberts saved us twice, Ainscough may not have done.

He scored three in the reserves yesterday and had a decent game. All three were run ins, one from a break by Flanangan and two provided by Pryce.

As I said, onwards and hopefully upwards.

I think one things for sure........we can argue all day wheather Ainscough should be in the side and if we're a better side with him in it but we can't argue about Sam Tomkins! The side looks so much better with him in it and so much more of a threat.

Sam Tomkins has to be in on merit on Friday and Ainscough should be in because Carmont isn't fit.

I would say that is the team, I thought phelps has been solid at Full back and offered more than richards, but I think he is best when at centre and maybe with Carmont not fit, this gives us a chance to post some points, alright we won't have the attacking threat from Phelps at fullback but surely its time to give ainscough another try....

Its convincing "our great leader" that this is the case, because its seems to me, he isn't so sure!!

I heard rumours at the reserve match that piggy is a bit unsettled(his wife apparently) and maybe on his way out?? anybody else heard this or is this just what some(me) want to believe?