Why do we always have 4 forwards on the bench?
Do backs never get injured? Why can't we have other options?
SOL doesn't seem capable of playing 80 minutes and Gregson for all his honest endeavours is never a 6 in the memory of man.
Id be tempted to put Higginson on the bench.
Personally I wouldn't have Isa in any starting 17. Has he made a break yet?

We don't "Always" but I agree 90% + of times we do and for me it's a straight forward answer.
We usually have 5/6 forwards that can do a job in the backs but not many backs that could go the other way.

At a push Farrell/Joel/Bateman/Lockers/Powell/Isa can all play in the backs

Whereas I would probably argue Gelling (And even then I bet he's not played 2 games there over the last 4 years) is the only one who could do a similar job the other way.

With regards to your other points
Lockers - He can do 80 mins and has done when he's played in the halves and 13 - Not when he's injured though
Gregson - I agree he's not a long term option but with Lockers/Williams/Tomkins out and Powell covering for Mickey Mac I'm not sure what other option he has (Please don't bring Hampshire into the argument - For whatever reason they've not recalled him and whether I agree with that is another issue but without the full facts I can only go with what we have).

I thought Higginson showed up well against Warrington - However realistically the only player who he could have replaced in the 17 last night would have been jack Wells who I thought put a decent shift in.
Either way not sure how having Higginson on the bench would have changed/improved the nature of our performance?

As for Isa - Thought he had a decent game last night (Apart from a poor dropped ball early 1st half) after a couple of average ones on returning from injury.
However (And I was going to bring this up a couple of weeks ago in the middle of the injury crisis)
I remember Monie saying in times like these he would pick his best 17 players and fit them in.
I tend to agree, I'm not sure which player didn't play last night would have improved that performance/result?

We were missing who weren't available due to injury etc :-
Sam T
Dom Manfredi
George Williams
Mickey
Dom Crosby
Joel T
Liam Farrell
Sean O'L

Who didn't play apart from those that should have been picked and with all that experience missing who would have provided that experience?

Needs must really at the minute. What I will say is that once we're at full strength I wouldn't mind seeing us run with Sarginson on the bench. He can cover every back position and I'd also like to see how he could go spelling at 9 with Sam Powell. If we want to change things up and go a bit more direct he'd really challenge defenders running out of dummy half.

A lot of the criticism of Smith has been unjustified. He has helped to hold together a vastly weakened team. I agree that he is not the flashy playmaker but he does his job week in week out. Powell has been something of a revelation this season but does not have the flair to his game and Gregson, although he has does splendidly for someone of his age, is never going to be a player in the Sam mold. We do look a bit pedestrian in our play but that is to be understood. Someone should have a word with Gregson and remind him that his try the other day and his near try came about when, instead of just shipping the ball across the field he stepped back at pace and took the line on.

Somehow I very much doubt there's teenagers amongst the regular posters here. On the contrary, recent posts suggest the average age is even higher than I'd imagined...

You mean apart from the evidence before your eyes you mean? Where he stopped looking to pass as soon as he got the ball and stopped trying to organise the next play before this one had finished, which he does robotically, week after week?



I don't think you can get away from the fact our attack is very structured (and predicable...) and that isn't down to Smith alone. It's clearly the tactics we play and he has to play his part and the other members of the time set themselves up ready for the same. It was the same when Williams and MM were in the side so I don't think the injuries count a great deal. Due to Smith sticking rigidly to the tactics it was easy to load the defence onto Williams as Smith offered little direct threat himself. If Wane wants him to be more of a threat and try more off the cuff stuff why aren't we seeing it? In the absence of Williams, Lockers and MM it's not really the time to be so rigid as no one else is going to add the flair.

Bear in Mind I was talking about his performances, not the style of play he plays.
Can you give me any examples where robots perform week in week out as inconsistently as Smith


With regards to his style of play surely you can't on one hand say Smith is garbage for 65 mins and then say he did well for 15 and suddenly put that down to him ignoring Wane's instructions?
Not unless you are more interested in Bagging Wane at every opportunity (Surely not)!

I don't for one second think that Wane wants him to come away from his pretty rigid structure, I just think he wants him to do it better than what he is doing it currently.
"IF" that's the way Wane wants him to play that's down to the both of them, what I am saying is that Matty Smith played very well in my opinion against Castleford particularly 2nd half. That wasn't because he came away from Wanes instructions, it was just that he did what he did well and kicked intelligently and chose the right option at the right time. He just doesn't do this week in week out - He does it 1 game in 5 and for 10minute spells within games and very rarely for 80mins.
I commented with 10 to go against Cas that if we lose from this point I wouldn't complain too much as we'd done the right things at the right time, we hadn't handed the game to them.

Last night however was yet again different and more in line with 60/70% of his performances over the last 18months and I will give examples (And I could probably give you a dozen more over the last 5/10 games) - we've just got level at 12-12 and we frog marched fantastically 60 yards from the kick off down field.
Last tackle (And I'm going off on one to everyone around me) all he has to do is keep the ball in play inside Hudds 10 and make Brierley return it (Which he hates doing as he's Nesh!) or find touch.
What does he do, kick it dead!
Quick Tap, No pressure and they're already on the 20 on Zero tackle and 3/4 tackles later Hudds have gone through our left centre and try.
He kicks that in touch and a scrum set on the 10 with little or no metres on the first or Put Brierley into the corner on the first tackle and that stands a FAR FAR less chance of them scoring.
10 minutes later and all he has to do is the same thing (Touch or keep ball in play) and he kicks and ball gets charged down and luckily we get the scrum otherwise we'd be turning over cheap ball on the 30.
In between he puts a High kick in that gets no more than 5/10yards of distance and if it wasn't for Bateman breaking free from 2 tackles and getting a kick in that Gelling chased to put Brierley in touch (By The way Bateman was 2 yards offside and it should have been a penalty!) we would have been on the 30 yard line handing over cheap ball again!
It was exactly the same at Hull, He kicked a ball dead with 20 minutes to go when we were in front and they scored from next set and momentum changed when I'm telling you he BLASTED the ball at the Touch in goal flag and I'm convinced he was aiming for touch and missed by YARDS!

I'm confident Wane isn't telling him to do those things, these are the things that SMITH Needs to put right and as I say make no bones about it He knows it and Wane knows it.
At this moment Wane has little option but to stick with this option, would he if he had other options? I'm not sure but would probably guess he would (Which is a criticism of Wane from me) but it probably wouldn't be highlighted as much as with better players around him he can get away more with some of these failings.

Smith's "Game Management" is Poor (I typed awful and then changed it), this to me is the most infuriating bit.
He's not an individual style player, he's not got the skills, pace etc. to be that.
So he needs to be better at the other things, take a leaf out of say a Sinfield's books and manage the game, show some leadership, organisation etc. and he isn't.
That's my problem with him, not what "Style" we play.
We play that style and within it Smith should be perfectly suited to it rather than an off the cuff style and at the moment he looks like the weak link when he should be the one stepping up.

I don't know how many times SOL has played 80mins - Wonder if Bilko does?
But I'll have a bet when he has played (As a LF or half back - not as a prop because you wouldn't expect him to?) I bet he's played the majority of times 80mins?

As for the 10 forwards and 4 forward subs argument I don't 100 agree with it all the time I just think that in OUR SITUATION it suits us to do it and at this present time I think it provides more options and Is better for the team do so.

You obviously don't rate ISA, that's up to you.
I'm saying I would pick him currently and until SOL/Farrell/Tomkins J are back and SAM T freeing up Sarginson then I would pick him currently rather than expose any of the other options too much (I did ask "WHO WOULD YOU HAVE PICKED WHO WAS AVAILABLE?" - As you didn't answer that I'll guess there isn't anyone?) And therein lies the issue presently.

8 wins from 11 is a Good return in the circumstances.
Have we performed Magnificently? From a Quality point of view, probably not, but from a Commitment and effort POV then Absolutely! Not sure many other teams could have got through this and come out the other side like we have (Touch wood we are coming out the other side!).

I did say Higginson originally so didn't think I needed to repeat.
I agree with the commitment it is absolutely first class. The problem that I have is that even with a full complement unless ST works the oracle I just don't see much change in our style. We may have better players but it's a style that stinks the house out.
The atmosphere is non existent and has been on a decline for 2 seasons now with attendances falling rapidly. The people I talk to are like myself glad we are winning but without exception everyone complains about the sheer lack of quality and entertainment.
SW will not survive irrespective of injuries unless he wins something this term and if I'm honest if attendances don't pick up that may not save him.
I like SW as a person and until last year I was a major fan of his but the last 18 months has seen a significant reduction in entertainment levels. I'm in the old fashioned camp that good players don't need extensive coaching and need to be given latitude on game management i.e. adapt to conditions/opponents as required. SW seems to want to manage everything which can only result in one outcome. I hope that when we get back to full strength he loosens the reigns a little and gets us back to playing proper rugby.

When everyon's fit, (ie last season) he pretty much always played Powell on the bench, who is really a half back despite having to cover hooker a lot.

I think Sam will be a BIG part of what we do however it's not in isolation, we have to consider George Williams and the improvement there along with SOL at his natural 13.
I personally don't mind the "Style" we play but I guess that's each to their own (I personally thing we do go a bit side to side too much too early at times).
I do agree that Wane is in Last chance saloon as Silverware in 1 of 4 seasons is not great although he was close on 2 other occasions (2 if you count year 1 when if Finch kinds touch with 2 mins to go we probably make the GF! but that's another story).
With regards to "Entertainment Value" I can't quite make my mind up.
I'm caught between agreeing, and I certainly think Salary cap etc should be raised and clubs given chance to add some WOW to the League
But also disagreeing as I'm quite enjoying more British youngsters playing the game but then worried that they're being head hunted by NRL/RU
I quite like the competitiveness of each week, each game providing different often difficult challenges more than trouncing teams at points like it used to be
However
Understanding that competitiveness doesn't equal quality at times.

What I will say however is that I don't get the "Everyone I talk to thinks it's boring etc." feeling.
I do when I come on here from some but to be honest I'm of the opinion that if you keep telling yourself that and listening to people telling you that you'll start to believe it (Saying that a bit tongue in cheek TBH).

With regards to the last paragraph and I know this sounds argumentative but I find it strange that people make assumptions about Wane etc. on subjects we can't possibly know the full truth about.

Statements like "I get the impression that Wane does this or that" doesn't mean that he does actually do these things, it just perpetuates the feeling that he does.
Your statement "SW seems to want to manage everything which can only result in one outcome. I hope that when we get back to full strength he loosens the reigns a little and gets us back to playing proper rugby" could portray a negative image of a situation.
The truth "May" be different. He may not be managing everything in a control freak manner?

For instance
SW has this image of being Angry, tough, etc. whereas Madge had the image of being Cool and calm.

The truth from what I'm told by people (More than 1) from inside the dressing room is somewhere in-between and in truth it was Maguire that got Angry/intense more than Wane does.

I do believe he's closer to the end of his term than the beginning, but to be honest I've enjoyed some of the backs to the walls wins under Wane as much as some of the exhilarating free flowing rugby type wins we had under Madge and to be fair under Wane at times.

Maybe some of the atmosphere loss etc. could have been averted if some of the "Good Feeling" we had in the stands 2010/2011 early 2012 had continued?
However that's a different story! (And I am definitely being mischievous with that one!(
PS - Do I get to keep that ball that stuck in the flag on the gantry last night?

Itchy and Juke i agree with you both on points raised but at this stage, we are top of the league, and i suppose it's all a bit relative.

Itchy i agree and have always been an advocate of having a utility player on the bench, similar to what Wire do with Ratchford when they have a full strength side. I also agree Isa hasn't pulled any trees up but his endeavour holds him in good stead. However endeavour doesn't win you games, having a utility player such as him in the squad can only be a good thing. We also have the nice selection problem of what happens if we have a full strength side. We have 3 SL class second rowers in Farrell, Bateman and Tomkins. We also could put Bateman at 13 in the absence of Lockers (but he might not be injured again) We have people who can do the centre spots. My personal opinion is that it should be Gelling and Gildart but will probably be Gelling and Sarginson but then we have J.Tomkins, Bateman and Isa who can fill in here. It's a nice selection headache when fully fit. I think Isa would be better as an impact player who can cover a few positions rather than a starting spot and we also have Gregson who is obviously wet behind the ears but has huge potential, Higginson can only get better, Let's be fair he was good at going forward but got caught out of position a lot, Similar to Gildart last season, but games can only improve that.

Juke i agree that you was alluding to. Have we played 2010 vintage? no of course not but we are doing enough at this stage. We are always late bloomers and to be in the position we are now has to be a bonus and with Sam's imminent return it is going to strike fear into the opposition and they won't know if we are coming or going. We will have the pacey Williams running things from 6. We will have the mellowed Smith having a lot more time to make decisions at 7 and we will have an (hopefully) full of beans Sam back at 1. There isn't one team in the league that will want to face that. It will be like Jeckyll & Hyde all going in the same direction and a puzzle for other coaches to suss out. I think we are in a good position and it will only get better. Matty Smith has been disappointing on the whole since he signed but he could well end up being one of the most influential players we have signed. I believe it so but only time will tell to see if i am right or not.

For instance
SW has this image of being Angry, tough, etc. whereas Madge had the image of being Cool and calm.

The truth from what I'm told by people (More than 1) from inside the dressing room is somewhere in-between and in truth it was Maguire that got Angry/intense more than Wane does.


I have met SW socially a few times (as i am sure many have) and have always found him a very approachable and down to earth man. Always got time for the fans and want's to know your views on how things are going.

I don't really go with the "impact" player. I can count on one hand the number of players who really do make an impact on a regular coming off the bench. I want my starting 13 to be my best 13 players and ideally baring injuries I want them all to play 80 minutes.
My biggest criticism of our set up is that we do nothing different and have nothing differnt on the bench when things don't "go to plan". It drives me mad when we kick high to the wings on the last tackle on virtually every occassion even when we have the shortest winger in comp playing.
By the way for entertainment the 2012 season takes some beating and for me was better than 2010.