Firstly can I say what a great effort by the team today. Had we been able to convert a couple of the chances in the first half it could have been a different outcome.

However, JK picking Veivers on the bench was ultimately a contributory factor to our fatigue in the 2nd half (as well as the whistle of Mr Childs). It made no sense at all to pick him as a sub - we needed 3 forwards plus Wildie to compete with a big Leeds side.

Neither Veivers or Wildie were used until about 60 mins when the game had got away meaning we had played over an hour just using the same 15 - madness. In addition, why does Kyle Amor only get to play 10 mins here and there whilst Johnson is being asked to do tonnes of work.

Finally, when Veivers came on, it meant wholesale changes with Dean into the pack and Murphy up to centre with veivers slotting in at full back. Murphy's best position is full back and he should stay there.

(Apologies if this has been discussed on the main match thread, but I have only just got home, so not had chance to read it)

totally agree

Agree 100%

Veivers shouldn't be anywhere near the first 17. Simply not good enough yet IMHO.

What has Annakin got to do to get a chance? Shocking call from JK not to put Gledhill or Annakin on the bench.

Re Hendo - sorry but he is not a prop. If I was Annakin or Gledhill I would be deeply frustrated Mr Average is keeping me out of the starting 17

Vievers should not have been on the bench, it should have been either Annekin or Gledhill.

However i am not sure how much difference this would have made to the outcome but i did feel that we began to tire towards the end but i think that was mainly due to the massive effort we put in in the first half.

Yes but you have to take into account 2 subs were not used until 60 mins and Amor hardly played, so having another forward instead of Vievers and giving Amor more game time would have spread the work load better

Was a baffling selection but not a surprise. He's got form for this and the lack of support for the forwards was obvious as the penalties and fatigue took their toll.

I'm afraid JK got it horribly wrong again today. We needed forwards and all we had was an average fullback that required wholesale changes in the backline. Baffling.

Would be good to hear JK's take on picking a full back on the bench, as there must be some kind of reason for it, he's done it more than once!!

All the changes are what makes it worse. Another forward and its one off and one on. We need to get a settled three quarter line and keep playing them so they can start to build an understanding of each others game.

Feel sorry for Gledhill he could easily have done 20 mins like Veivers did without it harming his development.

Was Rinaldi injured because we changed when he left the field?

Don't think he was injured but probably knackered. Kear should have spelled him sooner. Wildie has done nothing wrong in the games he has played and as we all know RL is most definitely a 17 man game, so you have to have confidence in the 17 you pick (or even 16 of them!!)

Don't buy this development lark. He played nearly the whole match for the 20's yesterday and played really well. When it suited he played for the 20's on the Saturday and 1st Team on the Sunday against Salford. He needs game time not protection.
Baffled!

Am i right in saying Rinaldi and Morrison were off the pitch at the same time in the 2nd half. if so, a lot of experience missing for a crucial spell. Apologies if I'm wrong.

Yes they were but i think that it was only because Morrison went off with what looked like a knock.

I argued against this last week but I have to say I'm coming round to your point of view; he should have been on the bench today and would definitely have added value.

Has he done something to upset Mr Kear?