Talking about it being bizarre highlights how underrated the guy is IMO. He is consistently banging out stats in the second row that any backrower in the history of superleague would be made up with. He is always up at the top or near to the top for tackles, carries, metres etc and has an incredible strike rate for try’s and assists. If we’re talking of the best second rowers in superleague history I’d have him up in the top 5 without question. The comparison to Roby isn’t a direct one, they’re in different positions after all but what I’m getting at is that Roby has forged a reputation as a World Class player (and rightfully so) on a career of knocking out incredible numbers and that is what Farrell does but he’s never come close to getting the credit he deserves IMO.

Re Burgess, I wonder what the medical aspect of our recruitment process is like? He hasn't had any real injuries since being here, yet there clearly seems to be something wrong with him as he's a shadow of the player he was. You'd imagine therefore that this would have been picked up in any medical examinations he underwent. So did the club think that it was worth it anyway, or that he'd get better in time?

Instantly knew we were screwed when Farrell picked up that injury against Sydney last year.

That’s a concern for me.

Widely reported prior to signing he was shot due to an ongoing hip issue.

Similar to when we brought Sam back with major knee injury that was so bad it was a threat to his career and realistically he had only really recovered for it in the last year.

I think you're potentially underestimating how hard it is to slot into the forwards regularly at that age. At the same age Joel Tomkins was being loaned out to Widnes, Liam Farrell hadn't made his debut, Hansen was getting the odd game off the bench, Hock hadn't made his debut. Meanwhile Smithies has already established himself as first choice in the 17 regardless of who else is available IMO. I'd be interested to hear from those who watched him in the academy whether he was just a grafter at that level or whether he had more to his game when he was a bigger piece of the puzzle? In the Jamie Peacock special sky did, he said when he was first coming through he made a point of focusing on the hard un-flashy work to establish himself and gain the respect of the other forwards. I wonder whether there's an element of that?

Does anyone know the procedure when it comes to medical examinations prior to signing a player?

I can't remember any signings being cancelled because of a player failing a medical like they do in Football.

It does seem a strange one, as presumably a player would need to take, and pass, an array of physical tests for the position they play in, especially if the club is investing so much money in that player.

to be fair Sam was mis diagnosed so maybe we didnt think it was as bad as it first feared thats why he went under the knife straight away here

You may well be right, I am just going off what I have seen - it could well be he has been told to play in a certain way for example.. I do not doubt how well he has gone and continues to do all be it in a limited role. I hope he goes on to have a long and good career.

What I have seen is a good solid player with a strong work ethic and very good defensive abilities (although recently he might need to curb his aggression a bit). I haven't seen anything in an attacking sense which makes me sit up and take notice and that is a criticism that could be levelled at the pack in general (Farrell excepted who is on another level).

I hope he does have more to his game and we start to see it because it would add to the team massively. I just think some of the praise has been a little over the top - that is my reservation.

Your point is taken about previous forwards but I suspect that there was more competition for places (and more established forwards in the squad then). we have had to use a lot of youngsters over recent seasons (especially given the injury prone experienced forwards at the club) which not a bad thing.in some ways but may have meant they have been used sooner than otherwise might be the case.

anyone...?

I believe you lose an interchange if you play anyone who wasn't named in the initial 21.

At the start of the year changes to the 21 man squad would result in the club losing an interchange in the fixture. When Covid hit that was scrapped to make it easier for the clubs.

You're supposed to only be able to make changes to the 21 with a doctor's note I believe. So for example you used to get teams naming a strong 21 the week before a cup final then swapping them all out for a weak side on the day. The fans then get annoyed because some may have saved themselves the trip if the team had been honest about who would play. Possibly a bit of a safeguard against betting scandals as well (e.g Long and Gleeson in that exact situation). You could argue they can get themselves a doctor's note if they need one of course but I doubt a doctor would risk his/her licence by issuing 10 on the same day.

Thanks MadDogg & Grimmy.

So, in essence, there is no point at the moment in naming your squad so early and no penalty if you make changes. Makes you wonder why they still go through this charade!

Like I said, it still gives fans, opposition and betting companies a fair idea who is going to play due to the doctor's note requirement for any changes. A doctor would come under scrutiny if he/she wrote a load at once at a convenient time. This week is a good example, we can see already that we will have a different looking set of forwards as there is no Havard, Bullock or G.Burgess in the squad.