he was that bad.he must have dropped the ball at liest 5-10 times

If only hindsight was foresight

The coach picked what he thought was the best team to do the job. The game was terrible but we got the points that the most important thing.

If we had played outstanding this debate would not be on the boards. We got the points that's all that matters.

Absolute rubbish. If the lad was fit he should have played. Wasn't mr Webster our attacking coach under agar. Anyway that was the game to have a look at the new partnership, not drop a player. The run of 5 home games is going to be very interesting.

Disagree. That was a must win game to play the team that the coach thought would give us the two points. You are Richard Agar and I claim my £5

Probably dropped due to acting life an old traffic cop and waving players through in Bradford match.

It was a must win game, and one we should win. So we drop a player who's shown some effort and kicks goals, and go back in time to last seasons partnership. Not very creative.

The problem is we have a disjointed squad with too many players available for 1,6,7. I am prepared to let Webster make his own judgement and allow him time to get his best team.

He went for tried and tested.
Sammut has his place and I would have played him but he picked what he thought would work best for that game.

When we signed Smith I thought excellent , a chance for a good H B partnership to develop. Don't think I was on my own either, who thought in all honesty Smith would be partnering Sykes. No it was a missed oppertunity.

Have to say it didn't surprise me he went with Sykes/Smith partnership its what I expected it worked well in the past and lets face it we needed the points.Next week against the pies when I don't see a win come what may is when we can experiment a little not when we have a must win game.

It's simple for me.
Doesn't matter how good he is on paper if the attitude isn't right or coach thinks there is a better option then he should be dropped.
I'm sure he'll come back stronger.

It's ironic that we are now complaining about a player not playing out of position.

Smith had to play, and Webster picked a team for him.
I reckon Sammut at fullback with Smith hitting on a long pass would be great, but dry ground needed.

Bang on!

As I posted Webster said that Sykes and Smith was the best partnership for this game because they've played together before, with Smith only having 1 and a 1/2 sessions with the team it was the appropriate thing to do.
IMO I don't think the conditions would of suited Sammut on Sunday, guess we'll never know though. Hopefully we put Sammut to FB and Godinet at Stand-off.
But I was happy with Websters decision, probably the best thing to do.

I'm hoping your comment of Godinet to stand off was tongue in cheek? He didn't play well at all the other day, his kicking out of hand poor previously and presently is an impact hooker from the bench only on form.

Mathers and Sykes played well so it'll be interesting if Sammut gets one of their spots next match...

Godinet and Sammut are not organisers. Sammut is a bit like Chase of the cuff type of player I said Godinet at 6 because he'll be able to play of Tim Smith just like Sykes does.