OK


As long as if you win I get the chance to double or quits at some point through the season

Guess I must be a bit slow. I really don't see how this 'mind games' (if true) is to our advantage? I would have thought if anything, the opposite would be truer, in that saying Horne and Long are vey doubtful to play, and then they turn up.

If Noble has a game plan to try and stop Horne and Long, and then it turns out to be any combination of Washy/Berro/Turner, then his plan will make life even much harder for whoever the halves are.

If you don't train all week you don't play .. To take a risk with the two players send out a statement that players are carrying an injuries Why take a risk ..I want to see 17 fit players battling it out

Not really. You have to prioritise danger men in the opposition. Planning to target Long means by default concentrating less on someone else. If Long isn't playing you might re-adjust those priorities, not necessarily just target Washy in the same way.

I'm quite OK with our approach TBH. If we had previous in terms of, for example, exaggerating injuries only for players to miraculously be fit and provide a Morgan-esque "timely boost" this stuff could be shrugged off as business as usual bollox, but the fact is that we've generally provided clarity for the opposition about what to expect and the fact we're having this conversation means it creates uncertainty for the opposition. Say Long and Horne are injured. Agar's decided on his 17. Who to name as 18 and 19? Moa and Lyne? Or Long and Horne? I personally think the latter as they are pivots who might change the game and therefore create more scenarios for Noble to have to consider.

It's a small thing. But as someone has said, the margins are small these days. Whilst I despise rugby union, Clive Woodward's philosophy of doing 100 things 1% better did reap rewards. Why not just make things 1% more difficult for the opposition's gameplan for the sake of putting 2 names on a sheet of paper?

Flipside to that is if we've spent all week with a certain game plan that Long will play were does it leave our preparation if he fails a fitness test?

Sorry, I was replying to those suggesting that Long is out for 4 weeks and was never going to play, in which case we won't have planned around him.

The fact that its been in the public domain for most of the week that Long is doubtful for the game means that Noble will have plans to play us either with Long or without him. Does anyone seriously think that the difference between the 2 sides on Sunday will be the uncertainty for the Crusaders as to whether or not Long plays? If we are genuinely doing this mind games rubbish we shouldn't have even said Long is a doubt so that we could have got the full "surprise" effect if he doesn't play.

I can't help but feel that this conversation is premature. Should we not wait and see who actually takes the field before getting all worked up about "lies"/mind games/whatever?

No, but at present there are 2 possibilities, that he plays or not, as opposed to not naming him and making life a tiny bit easier for Noble. As already said, this in itself is a small thing, but if we do 100 small things better, or even 5 or 10 (like people have referred to the warm down routine, plus lots of things off the pitch that the club does), maybe the cumulative impact will make a difference. I think there's an over reaction here. If Long's not playing, and the 17 is decided anyway, where's the harm naming him in the squad rather than, say, Lyne?

No harm whatsoever, its the fact we are being told that he has a chance of playing and we are giving him until the last minute until we decide etc etc. Now if it turns out that is indeed the case and Long doesn't make this game but makes it next week then its all good and I've no problem. However, if it transpires that Long actually has an injury that will keep him out for 3-4 weeks and never had a chance of playing in this game then i wont be too happy about being "fooled" in that way.

As Kosh rightly points out this is all a little premature I suppose but I think the debate about whether or not its a legitimate tactic to play these sort of mind games is a valid topic for discussion. In certain circumstances I can see reason for it but I just dont think it serves any purpose here, if it is indeed the case.

If the inside knowledge is correct and Long is missing for the next 3/4 games then I really don't see the point in naming him in the 19.

So either he is close to playing or Agar is playing mind games, if it's the latter I don't get it!

Fair enough. Personally I don't see the harm in it, even if Long is out for a couple of weeks - keeps people guessing not least the opposition, and Sean Long playing or not will have no bearing on whether I attend or not. Not revealing your hand is one small thing a club can do to cause doubt in the opposition's mind and some coaches have made much of it. In that era when Wigan won the cup for years on end, I don't think I can remember a Cup Final week when Shaun Edwards wasn't "doubtful".

Didnt this all start of as a rumour early in the week,nothing has been said from the club apart from rich saying that hes close to playing,i honestly believe with the squad and other options available then he wouldnt be even in the squad if he was going to be out for a length of time,i think people are barking up the wrong tree.