With the introduction of Brad Drew we managed to get back into the game against Bradford. We got to 26 - 18. Drew gets us a Penalty 30 yards out just to the left of the posts.

Every schoolboy player knows what to do ` always take the two `. It puts us within one converted try, it gives us momentum, it puts doubt in the Bradford team, we get the ball back and continue to build pressure.

What a surprise our bunch of thick dullards, surely as a group the thickest RL team ever to take the field, once again decide to run the ball. True to form we lost the ball on the second tackle. Bradford then went 80 yards in four plays and scored.

Its not the first time, we often run a penalty when two points are available and it is always wrong. As our team is so thick and seem to struggle to understand the most basic of game plans lets keep it simple always take the two.

I do believe the players were looking towards the bench for guidance. So is the players or our coaching staff having brain farts?

We weren't in the game until Bradford decided to take the two at 6-0. On that back of that the game changed as we got a bit of field position and they started falling apart.

Totally disagree. With hindsight taking the 2 would have been the best thing, but the amount of times we've kicked for goal and then proceeded to lose the ball in the next set after the restart. This not only gifts the opposition great field position, but a chance to put the game out of reach with another score. By kicking for touch we have the opportunity to pin the opposition in their half. Yes, we may not score a try, but we have the chance to build pressure, force a drop out or at the least make them go the length of the field to score (which they did). With the game as it was, building pressure seemed the preferable option to me. I do not think we have the players to drive us the length of the field without the aid of penalties, so in my opinion we should make the most of try scoring opportunities whilst we are in the right half of the field.

I generally agree with the "always take the 2" but in this case I don't

We scored the same number of tries and missed all our kicks so the score line looks out of balance but we didn't have a particular problem scoring and had dropped a few chances as well so why not go for it.

Even with hindsight I don't think you can say kicking the goal would have made a difference.

And I don't think we have "dullards" in our team, certainly not in the decision making positions. If they'd scored we'd have been praising them so it is not the decision you are doubting, just the implementation of the decision.

You didn't notice midway through the first half when Joey Deacon had a bang on the arm and would not have been able to catch the ball never mind tackle a player? We spent 3 or 4 tackles going the complete opposite way (despite all the wakey crowd pointing at him!), fair enough it went to Gleeson on the last play and we scored in the other corner but we should be spotting things like this during the game - good sides with vision spot this sort of thing and exploit it.

Can't understand why martin didn't have a kick when DB had missed a couple - could have been a completely different game (provided of course that martin kicked his)

I said the same, Broughy normaly gets most of his kicks. Even if we had got all 5 kicks Brad would still have won.

Absolutely- they wouldn't have fancied us only being 2 or 4 points behind for most of the match with their position in the league and all that

I was saying exactly the same. martin was kicking superbly at the start of the season. Brough misses the kicks form in between the touch line and the sticks regularly, granted he gets loads from the touch line but I'd say Martin is the better kicker of the two.

Much as I love Kear, this is one of the many strange things he does. When a player appears comfortable doing a certain thing JK seems to want to change things, it's like a compulsion with him. Most times it makes sense but sometimes it baffles everyone.