First of all how is it easier to support a big team? For a lesser side, a successful season would be potentially winning a couple of big games and scraping into the playoffs. There's no disappointment for you. When you support a big side you expect more and ultimately it's always 'what if/what could have been'. We've had SL winning seasons under Wane that many fans would dissect and potentially label as a 6 out of 10 season. I'm sure there's plenty of Saints fans our there smarting at the CC final loss - would Huddersfield fans be doing the same after winning the league in such an emphatic way?

Also Wigan wouldn't ever be in Bradford's position. This is a RL hotbed and even if we dropped out of SL we'd be back in a season - even if we'd have to play our reserves & sign a couple of journeymen. There's a passion for this club in the town.

Also sides like yours better pray that teams like Wigan, Saints or Leeds don't go down as that would be the end of RL in this country. You might not like it, but no one gives a t0ss about Huddersfield Vs Catalan etc, but they do wanna watch the big boys play eachother. Do you think Sky would pay anything like a going rate without any of the big sides? Could the same be said of a SL without Huddersfield? Like I said in my OP - you bring nothing to the table.

Correct, like the time in the seventies when our crowds (including me) dropped to as low as under 3,000, winning nothing, being relegated and signing second rate players from clubs like Swinton for a around 2 or 3 thousand.

Then the gang of four took over and the rest is history.

The problem with many supporters of today is that they have only seen the club have good times and never experienced any poor times.

A good comparison is everyday life for many today!

The selection by Wane has put paid to the nonsense that they did not get on together. You only had to see how they were hugging and catting to each other at the end of the Magic game at Newcastle which was the first time that Charnley had played for Warrington against us.

Charnley was not playing well for us at the time because his head was in the clouds over a move to Rugby Union, so Wane quite rightly dropped him for Marshall.

I with ‘him’ from over the hill re Smithies. He is a good young player with bags of enthusiasm, his work rate particularly in defence is outstanding. To be in international contention he needs to offer more in attack. IMO that will come in time when he fills out his frame but at the moment the knights squad is a good place for him.

It’s an interesting squad, no doubt most of the controversial selections will drop out as the Australian based players come in. I’m surprised at Connor though. I know he’s not started the season well but he’s a big game player and and has shown he can step up to international level.

I'm not sure what point you're making as I never intimated that they didn't get on.

As for your point regarding him not playing well for us, and as a consequence him binning him off for Manfredi (sic); I agree. Contrast that to now and he's currently not playing well either and yet he picks him in his first England 'squad'. As I said, strange decision.

When did Wane "Bin Charnley off"?
Dont remember it being that way

It was when his form dipped, I think around the time he was rumoured to be going to RU. Wane was in the press saying something along the lines of "Dom brings things that Josh doesn't" or something similar. There was quite a debate on here about it if you want to look back.

It was also claimed by some supporters "in the know" that Wane and Charnley did not get on which has now been proved to be a load of nonsense. As for Wanes comment, it was like many comments taken out of context of what he meant about the different styles and form of the two wingers.

In your opinion, but evidently not Wane!

What a strange thing to say. Of course I'm giving my opinion. How and why would I presume to give someone else's?

And I wasn't one of them so, again, I'll ask what your point is.

As for the second part, once again you're wrong. It isn't out of context. It was given as the explanation why Wane dropped him by Wane himself. Are you suggesting Wane was giving a reason why he was wrong to drop him or something? That's a very bizarre position to take but, going off your previous reasoning, I suppose that shouldn't come as any surprise.

Exactly, it was only a comment based on the form of both players in regard to form at the time and not Wane saying that Manfredi was a better player than Charnley as some supporters took the comment.

Wane should have said nothing like Lam has done with his dropping of Burgess for Manfredi.

Whilst I agree with your comments regarding better to keep quiet about these matters I think it true that Wane did very much rate Manfredi over Charnley. You have to keep in mind that these comments were made when Charnley was at the height of his powers so he clearly saw things in Manfredi that he didn't in Josh.

I think it also worth noting that Josh isn't in good form at the moment, having only scored 2 tries in 5 games, so the comparison to then and now is marked. That's why I said it was a strange decision.

My comments shouldn't be taken as Charnley bashing by the way. Far from it. He was sensational when he first signed for Wire and I thought his omission then was also a strange decision. I guess I'm saying that there are more deserving inclusions this time around, not least Marshall.

The whole Warrington team is not performing as expected!

Very true. In fact I've been having discussions with both board's resident ducks on this very subject!