booooooring...

out of interest what were the reasons given for keeping TL off for so long?

He said MM had to hold Tommy back for longer as he only had 4 subs left (think he said 4) He had injuries to Lockers, Mossop and Josh. He couldn't risk running out of interchanges if any more came up. Also said he had to hold his nerve with them for as long as possible and that it paid off. Makes you wonder if there was any more carrying knocks.

I was another screaming for lulu to come back on as we had lost a bit of impetus around the ruck but I dont think this is just down to micky mac, who is IMO a good player deservedly in the 17, but when lulu is playing well, which he was, we should give him longer on the pitch as he has the greater influence on the speed we play at, which worries the opposition.
Tommy is just a great player and anyone would find it hard to replace him and play as well as him.

Completely agree! During the game we were all screaming for Tommy to come back on! I believe I'm right in saying that With MM on the field we didn't score one try. With Tommy on the pitch we conceded only one of the tries, the final Ablett one.
With people saying that this is just a "coincidence" and other interchanges need to be looked at .. It's not just any interchange, the hooker position is crucial as they're your direction and structure in setting up play and a huge character in the defensive line. If MM is leaking tries and not putting any on the board it is completely the opposite to what is the basics of the hooking role.

Can't believe people are trying to blame McIlorum for Hoffman, Richards and Lima knocking on in our own half. That is the root cause of our poor performance in the 2nd half, giving away possession and territory and asking ourselves to do too much defensive work in our own 20

Exactly, but you won't convince the witch-hunters of that. Pryce has gone; new scapegoat needed.

The point is thay when we did have possession before anyone had knocked on we werent making much/any impact

Maybe that's because we were tired from having to defend too much, along with having a limited number of subs due to the injuries to Lockers and Mossop?

Were it a one off I would agree with some of the people that do not seem to think it is a problem, sadly though it is not a one off. I cannot help but think McIllorum is starting in some peoples eyes to be immune from criticism as he came through the ranks at Wigan.

Fortunately, Madge & Waney disagree with you, as do most of the MoM voters on here, who have him currently in the top 10.

From what was apparently said yesterday it appears they do not. Were we not carrying so many knocks with only a few subs left sounds like he would have been off much earlier.

I feel he gives his all which always goes down well with spectators and credit to the lad, but if we are to continue to move forward then we need a better back up hooker.

Lets not forget people on here were raving about Goulding last year, who did very little apart from catch and put the ball down over the line without too much difficulty. Whilst Josh Charnley has his flaws mainly in his defensive positioning and decision making he is a far better addition to our back line as he offers so many positives. I highly doubt from what i have seen Logan Tomkins is the answer but for me we need to be actively grooming/signing a hooker if we are to stay ahead of the chasing pack........unless McIllorum can be more consistent with his good performances which every now and again he is capable of producing, but they are few and far between.

Calls for McIlorum to be shifted to the back row are unfounded in my opinion. He tackles hard but that's the only facet of his game he'd have going for him in that position for me. I've seen nothing to suggest he would be up to making hard yards up the middle of the field. He scoots well occasionally but that's a hooker's role, not a second rower's. Look at the type of work Hoffman and Hansen do (i.e. the work they do organising the defensive line, the angles they run, the yards they make) and tell me you honestly think McIlorum could do that.

Regards McIlorum at hooker I don't think he offers us anything different. People rave about his defense, and althogh I don't disagree, he's certainly doesn't hit any harder than Tommy and their distribution and ability to get the team going forward isn't comparable.

I've been saying for a few months now that Tommy is an 80 minute player. I've seen nothing to suggest otherwise re. his stamina and if that's the case then I'd much rather have 4 forwards on the bench with McIlorum dropping out.

Sounds harsh but we are undeniably better with Tommy on the field. If he isn't upto 80 minutes, then I'd suggest McIlorum should only be on long enough to allow Tommy to see out the rest of the match.

I'm not wirting McIlorum off, but he has a big preseason coming up. Ne needs to work with and learn from Tommy. His distribution isn't good enough at current and he isn't getting us up the pitch.

jonh, whilst i do agree with you in the fact that a few times this season we have dropped our levels when tommy has gone off. quite clearly tommy is a top class number 9 who is both strong in attack and defence. like at warrington,saints and leeds their 1st choice number 9 is streets ahead of their number 2. unless we have 2 hookers of the same calibre or tommy plays 80 minutes, we can only hope mickey can improve up to the standard tommy sets.
also on saturday we dropped when hansen was off the field and when faz came on, he missed a few tackles and gave away a few penalties, he was more ineffective than mickey mac.

Leeds and Wire bring on impact, and whilst the players may not be in the same calibre as Buderus and Monaghan, Burrow and Higham provide forward momentum and different threat to the opposition. Roby is an 80 minute hooker more or less.

back up hookers will never be in the same league as the starting hookers generally, BUT they should bring something to the team, I personally do not think generally McIllorum brings anything to the party.