Goes to show how people see things differently. I didn't see anything in Williams performance today to be particularly negative about. You never know what to expect in games like these but I thought that while he made errors he made some very good plays too. Creating the tries for Farrell and Davies was a good sign. His short kicking was a bit off but considering that's an area of his game that he's been exceptional at for a good few years I wouldn't be too worried about one pre-season game.

Sammut did as well as could be expected. His kicking game was very strong and early on his defence was pretty solid - particularly as he had Junior Sau targeting him. Late on he was missing tackles and making one or two misreads but that could just be rustiness.

The most promising player so far has to be Bullock. He was outstanding against the Skolars and lifted the side when he came on this afternoon. He's got a good running style and seems hard for defenders to bring down.

I thought Flower was our best player in the first half but that was him being his usual self. Clubb is a definite starter and Bullock must be 3rd choice prop already, so the race for the other bench positions for the Saints game must be pretty tight.

Greenwood and Farrell were both impressive. I'm not sure what Lam is going to do with those two because both are really dangerous down the left edge. Isa started on the right but that seems like a massive waste going forward as he's nowhere near as good as Faz or Greenwood. Someone will have to move over to the right edge and might be a little less effective as a result.

When our younger forwards were on they still looked pretty strong which is good to see. Liam Byrne didn't look like a youngster making a step up to first team level, he was effective in attack and defence and should have a big future ahead of him.

The outside backs didn't get much of an opportunity to impress but Manfredi looks to be back to full strength (literally) judging by some of his carries. Hankinson looks a strong runner too. Hardaker was solid but unspectacular which is as good as can be expected. Escare also looked like his usual livewire self once he moved to fullback.

I'm looking forward to the Barrow game. I doubt any of the definite starters for the Saints game will play but I'd hope Lam gives the others a chance to play for their positions. Barrow will be a tough test but there's some real strength among our fringe players that should make it an interesting contest.

How we fit the playmakers into the side for Saints will be the big question though. We won the league with Leuluai at 7 and that surely seems like the sensible way to start the season when there are 3 big games in a row, but then Lam obviously rates Sammut and he did no wrong today. How Leuluai, Powell, Sammut and Escare all fit remains to be seen.

Not sure, felt like he’d been on all game but probably wrong. I’ll probably watch the game back at some point and have a good look how Sammut got on.

I think Williams does try to make things happen on almost every set and at times he just needs to settle us. Though without him we would be without a large part of our threat. That left edge is potent for a reason and hes a large part of that. Bullock, Byrne Kibula and Greenwood offer us real size and I hope we see them at some point. Bullock looks to have pushed himself in to contention already with his first two run outs you can't help but be impressed and hopfully.

I’m surprised to see so much criticism of Williams. I thought they really struggled to deal with him yesterday in that 1st half. Sammut compliments him well and his kicking was very good. I think the kicking game was one of the biggest positives to be honest.

Agree, largely, but think it will be forever thus when he's being held to a higher standard than most. Not even saying that this is particularly unreasonable, with his marquee status, natural ability and playing in such a key position. Even so, until he consistently puts in complete performances, think there will always be some criticism even when he creates scoring chances which other players wouldn't be able to.

On Sammut, pleased to see comments that he appears to be a decent organiser. My knowledge of him is entirely based on the off the cuff player that we saw in SL a few years back, so if he can do the other side of halfback play too, then fantastic.

I think the comments about Sammut suggest that opinions haven't changed that much since he arrived with Crusaders years ago... some absolutely love him whilst others can't stand him. The epitome of a Marmite player.

Personally I think his signing could be an inspired one. He is one of the most underrated organisers in the game and because he tends to play behind beaten packs has this rep as only being able to play off the cuff. Yes, he can create something from nothing but this can only benefit sides when Plan A isn't working.

Alongside Williams and behind your pack I think he has the ability to be an absolute bargain signing.

I agree. I saw the interview he did when he first arrived and he said then that he intended keeping the off the cuff stuff in his "back pocket" and would be looking to play more of an organising role but I was surprised at the extent he was able to do this. His performance yesterday was very Sneyd-like, constantly splitting the defence with his kicking and controlling the pace and place the game was being played. I can't remember the time we last exited sets in the opposition 10 in such a consistent fashion.

We all know he's a threat with the ball and can make something out of nothing. That's great to give us the extra threat on the right but we've been calling out for someone to 'partner' George in a traditional pairing for some time. Someone to take the responsibility of moving the team round the field to allow George to concentrate on what he does best. One showing isn't enough to say we've found that but I'm far more confident after seeing him do a full 80 in that role yesterday. Could well be a Deaconesque inspired signing.

Friendlies mean nothing. I wouldnt get too excited about some players having brilliant games and others having poor games. In the friendly boxing day game 97, Doc Murray had one of the best debuts ive ever seen. Saints couldnt lay a hand on him and we all thought he was going to be the best player in the league......

Williams will likely be the best player on the field in the first game.

Well I'm sure we'll discuss that come the first game of the season. Seeing this is a thread specifically pertaining to a particular game which was also a friendly I'm not exactly sure what your point is. Did you even watch the game?

My point is clearly outlining that you cant judge how well players are going to go by their performance in a friendly. Talk of Williams being poor and Bullock being the next Glenn Lazarus are premature and have no indication on how they will be playing in a real game.

Thats all i was getting at, nothing more, nothing less. Jeez, its such a hostile atmosphere on here if you have a different opinion!

hey up Mr negative is off on one again!

Do you not think the hostility is just a reaction to the way you post? It's very condescending to post as though none of us are aware of the limited use that friendlies have as a yardstick of how players will go. However as the friendlies are all we have to go on so far, then obviously we are drawing what we can from those for now. I'm sure attitudes and opinions will change over the course of the season.

Rather than get in an argument though how about you tell us how we should discuss a friendly without recourse to how individuals performed? Let's assume for the sake of this discussion that we all know that the game isn't an absolute measure of how players will perform over the course of a full season.