He literally has no runners and no platform off which to play so he has no choice. I have no idea what our attacking structure is.

No coach can make a top class player look ordinary. A top class coach can hone even an established player’s skills and develop young players. Most players coming back from the NRL seem to take some time to adapt.as the game here is different. Bateman may be underperforming but to put the blame solely at Lam’s door is ludicrous.

It's frustrating that we will never get to see Hastings in a good Wigan team. Such a talented, dedicated competitor.

It ain’t solely on Lam granted but it’s a massive part of it IMO, as it is with the fact he’s not got the best out of pretty much any player in three years here. Even Hastings isn’t at his best. He’s playing pretty well by his standards but he’s not come close to reaching the heights of 2019 in his two seasons with us. I don’t think there is a player in the squad Lam could hand on heart say he’s got the best from on a consistent basis over a sustained period of time.

I understand where you are coming from. There is a big difference though between making a top player look ordinary and not getting the best out of a player.

Attitude. Attitude can make an ordinary player look top class and a top class player look ordinary. There’s lots of factors affecting attitude so it can’t be nailed down to Lam but I’d bet my bottom dollar he has a huge part to play in Bateman’s (and others) poor attitude.

What is the cock up?

We were told if Bullock starts we would lose a sub and from what happened Lam decided to lose a sub so he wasn't forced to re-shuffle and start Bullock?

Was bullock not in your 21 man squad, my understanding is this only applies if you add someone that wasn't posted in the squad announcement in the week

Just checked, he was, thats weird.

What i don't get is why this needed to be so difficult and why we had to lose a sub, incorrectly or not. Just start bullock!

Lam is quoted as saying to fit bullock into the 13 we would have to shuffle about 5 players, i am confused at how this is so. from how i see it -

farrell moves to centre to cover gildart (a change that was 100% happening anyway no matter what scenario)
Partington drops back from prop to second row
bullock moves into starting prop.

Only 1 position change realistically as farrell was moving to centre in any scenario, this didnt need to be as difficult as we made it. Since bullock only played 8 mins i think somebody said? i am guessing it is the case that lam just really didn't want to play bullock either way. If he had started we would get 2 stints out of him rather then one pointless cameo in the second half. I can't wait for this season to be over as i have had enough of lam at this point

Partington isn’t a secondrow forward.

He isn't a prop forward to me either, dominated too easily in that position for me. He would benefit from running further out wide. Pretty sure he has played there before too.

If we are going to be pedantic about it though, include smithies in the rotation him second row, partington loose. Still not 5 players swapping, a sub up and more potential use out of bullock

Lam just seems hell bent on making life as difficult for himself and the team as possible

Not being a pedant just stating a fact.

I agree that would maybe have been a more sensible rotation however Lam clearly doesn’t rate Bullock and certainly not as a starting Prop so he made the call he did.

I can’t comment on the game as I’ve not seen it, I do know Partington however is definitely an edge forward.

Lam was only arguing with the RFL because he didn't know the rules. That has been the rules for years and years.
This just isn't funny. A head coach who doesn't know the rules of the game?

Time has to come when prospective head coaches have to take a rules and competence test and have to have passed it before they can be appointed.

The club IL/Rads should charge Lam with bringing the club into disrepute.
A head coach who doesn't know the interchange rules?
It beggars belief, it really does!