Or people have got the rumours wrong...

seems a bit bizarre to say the least to name 3 injured players in a 19 man squad were you need 17..whats the rules on replacing injured players in the squad?

Would have been if he'd been named in the squad. Looks like Nicklas is preferred to me.

Replacements can be brought in on the day of the game if injuries occur.Ellis to play 7 surely.

An op on a Saturday. Hmmm...

Gutted. Thank god we have actual half back cover.

That must depend on how you define an injury "occurring". If Seymour was injured but named, then it was decided he needed an op, then that would be tough. If the injury occurs after the squad is named, fine

I just don't see why Ellis wasn't named in the 19 if Seymour was/is a doubt. I think Nicklas may get the nod, especially after doing ok last week against Bradford.

This.


If we play Nicklas that means playing Horne at 7. We then also have no kicking game, and what was the point in signing Ellis if he's not our replacement 7?

Nicklas in the 19 and will replace Seymour with Houghton playing the full 80 I reckon.

Why does it? Nicklas played 7 against Bradford for his second spell, Horne stayed at 6. I'm not saying it's what I'd do, but I do think we might see it if the game goes ahead.

Well, which ever way round they play, neither are blessed with brilliant kicking games. Ellis is, that's why I'd play him.

Not seen him first hand, but from what I hear about his kicking game, I'd agree. I just think that if it's true about Seymour and he was a doubt from the off, there must be a reason why Nicklas was included and Ellis was not. It would have been better to name both.

Maybe Nicklas is more ahead of Ellis in terms of fitness and gametime.