personally i think it had something to do with the wind.

maybe bombing him in the first half in easier conditions may have boosted his confidence had he aught them.
dont think it was a half time decision tbh...think it was pre planned before the kick off.
it worked anyway......but lets not crucify Murphy...Sam would probably messed it up as well

Didnt start this thread to do that mate, all i am saying is that if Wane would have gone with his head and not his heart, putting Richards at full back ESPECIALLY in those rainy, windy conditions we would be making plans for Old Trafford next week.

I think it was massive mistake picking a young Inexperienced lad at fullback in suck a high pressure game. I thought murphy looked very good with ball in hand.

have people forgotten how much less penetrative we were without richards on the wing. also, to put it in real terms, the suggestion is to put richards who is not a fullback and hasnt played as such in over two years at fullback in place of someone whos been regularly playing fullback for two years, regardless of experience, and in addition to this, put a player who is essentially equally as untried as murphy on the wing and not even a winger, where he obviously wouldnt have dropped a kick as murphy did. seriously guys?

There was a possibility to exploit whoever was chosen to fill in. Sinfield could have exploited Thornley's lack of pace by kicking behind him for Jones-Bishop to chase; he could have exploited Gelling's poor positioning or Gelling could have done what he did in the cup game and fail miserably competing for a cross field kick with Jones-Bishop.

He took a risk with a young player who have been pretty much faultless at fullback for the under 20's. Murphy made errors facing kicks that most fullbacks would have trouble with. Tomkins struggled with similar kicks, I remember Amos Roberts struggled with high bombs in a game against Huddersfield.

Murphy would have been much more comfortable had the defence simply done its job and put pressure on the kicker. It was blatantly obvious what they needed to do and it's pretty basic stuff. When a ball is up in the air swirling around it's going to be difficult for any fullback and the job of the defence is to not allow the kicker to be able to put up kicks with all the time in the world.

The biggest fault was the teams failure to put pressure on the kicker after being shown exactly how important that was by Wire in the challenge cup final.

Completely agree. The fact that people are suggesting we would have been in a better position with any other combination is farcical.

Richards scored a try that another winger might not have done, so with Pat at fullback we may have lost with more points. Just get off Murphy's back. He was not the reason we lost.

I think the issue of positioning or pace is a moot one to be honest. An experienced player would have no doubt read the situation enough to leave a ball that was flying through the air with the chase some distance behind it to bounce out. Ultimately, it's the coaches call to put the player in that position, Murphy was only playing the game as he reads it and cannot be faulted in his approach to last nights game. It's just one of those things. Ultimately to me it hits home particularly hard how I've felt about the regular SL season for a few years now, 27 weeks of largely pointless games jockeying for a very slight advantage in a 3 week knockout competition.

Yep - couldn't agree more. 27 weekly rounds are pointless and a waste of money.

No they would be 100% correct.

Murphy wasn't being pressurised by anyone when he dropped the crucial kick so the idea it was the teams fault for not pressurising Sinfield does not wash.

Pat is one of the best takers of a high ball in the game and he would IMO have first of all not had Sinfield booting the ball at him all night whereas Muprhy effectively had a sign round his neck "kick at me I am a rookie" and he would have taken that kick easily. We'd be talking about about what a lame idea it was of Sinfield to try it had Pat been there not bigging him up as the purveyor of impossible to take kicks.

Also the idea Sinfield would have kicked at someone else if Pat has been at FB and that would also be a problem, no it wouldn't. It would have been far more preferable and is in no way as dangerous.

Why on earth people can't simply acknowledge Wane was an idiot to pick a rookie in a semi final at FB I don't know. It is something a coach should never do. Ever. As was proved on Friday night.

Why? The fact is we’ll never know, and that’s the point you can’t just say what others say is “farcical” when either way we’ll never know.

Charnley is the man for the FB job. Incredibly safe under the bomb, as proven against Leeds even with Hall attacking the same flank.
Pat plays FB like an old fashioned FB, not linking into the line ala Sam, Slater, Hodgson. Pat doesn't play second receiver role. Charnley, when covering for an injured Sam v Cats played as a second receiver.
Charnley has the pace, and quick step to cause all kinds of trouble in broken play, similar to Sam.
Josh is a dangerous player love to seem him with his hands on the ball more. FB provides that.


As we lack ideas and pace in the halves I certainly would to be looking to see Sam return to 6.

Can't believe I'm about to say this but I agree with DaveO

Full backs dropping balls is forgivable, what isn't is sheer stupidity of trying to make an impossible diving catch when there was no opposition players around. Hopefully harsh lesson learned and if he does play for Wigan again he won't make the same mistake.

Charnley at fullback would be similar to zak hardaker, good running in a straight line. He cant run the lines necessary just yet nor can he pass well enough, just like hardaker. Would be a solid fullback, but would need to develop his game.

He's a big enough lad, great pace and he's only 21 don't forget, plenty of time to learn and develop the position. If he's given a few games at FB next season i'd be delighted, Josh is a class act