Re: Jack Owens : Thu Nov 05, 2015 10:29 pm  

We finished 10 points above 6th place Wire last year.

Re: Jack Owens : Thu Nov 05, 2015 10:37 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

We scraped into the top 4 this season and the clubs below us have definitely made moves to improve their squads.

We didn't scrape into the top 4 though, we dropped down into 4th place after 2 losses targeting top spot. For accuracy I would say we struggled at the latter end to try and get 1st place and ended up the 3rd best team for super league wins.

Re: Jack Owens : Thu Nov 05, 2015 10:47 pm  

Losing Wilkin to injury really scuppered us. We were challenging for top spot before that happened, despite playing some god awful rugby.

Re: Jack Owens : Fri Nov 06, 2015 12:39 am  

Given that we have lost Josh Jones to Union and JT is being moved into the pack maybe KC is looking to give Matty Dawson an extended run at centre, his preferred position.

Matty has had to cover on the wing a number of times with mixed results, signing Owens means we have a winger to cover/interchange with Swift and Tommy freeing Dawson of his utility back role. I doubt that Dominique Peyroux has been signed as a first choice centre, he is likely to play in the back row, so the only other man in the squad that fits the bill is Matty.

Re: Jack Owens : Fri Nov 06, 2015 8:22 am  

Noel Cleal wrote:

Given that we have lost Josh Jones to Union and JT is being moved into the pack maybe KC is looking to give Matty Dawson an extended run at centre, his preferred position.

Matty has had to cover on the wing a number of times with mixed results, signing Owens means we have a winger to cover/interchange with Swift and Tommy freeing Dawson of his utility back role. I doubt that Dominique Peyroux has been signed as a first choice centre, he is likely to play in the back row, so the only other man in the squad that fits the bill is Matty.

If we're going into the 2016 season with Matt Dawson as our first choice centre then we're in a much worse position than I thought.

Re: Jack Owens : Fri Nov 06, 2015 8:49 am  

Noel Cleal wrote:

Given that we have lost Josh Jones to Union and JT is being moved into the pack maybe KC is looking to give Matty Dawson an extended run at centre, his preferred position.

Matty has had to cover on the wing a number of times with mixed results, signing Owens means we have a winger to cover/interchange with Swift and Tommy freeing Dawson of his utility back role. I doubt that Dominique Peyroux has been signed as a first choice centre, he is likely to play in the back row, so the only other man in the squad that fits the bill is Matty.

This makes no sense whatsoever, with all due respect.

Why would we move Turner from centre to back row, as well as playing Peyroux in the backrow, to go alongside Wilkin, Greenwood, Vea and LMS and then leave ourselves with one proper centre in Percival and a dud in Dawson? There's no balance there; 6 backrowers and 2 (at a push) centres.

There is no chance he will play Dawson at centre and then leave one of the above mentioned players out of the 17. That would be bordering on madness.

Re: Jack Owens : Fri Nov 06, 2015 10:16 am  

It seems to me that Matty Dawson has been retained purely as an insurance.The coaches know what he is capable of and can cover across the three quarters and he is durable therefore not often injured.If we get to the stage we are struggling with injuries and down to playing u19's that may not be ready Matty is there to cover.At the end of the day we only have a certain level of cap to play with and the club spends it how they feel best.

Re: Jack Owens : Fri Nov 06, 2015 10:34 am  

The Yellow Giraffe wrote:

This makes no sense whatsoever, with all due respect.

Why would we move Turner from centre to back row, as well as playing Peyroux in the backrow, to go alongside Wilkin, Greenwood, Vea and LMS and then leave ourselves with one proper centre in Percival and a dud in Dawson? There's no balance there; 6 backrowers and 2 (at a push) centres.

There is no chance he will play Dawson at centre and then leave one of the above mentioned players out of the 17. That would be bordering on madness.

Its much easier to put Turner back at centre and coached to improve his defence and make Wilkin into a settled loose forward pivotal role. We've now got Fages to cover half back/hooker positions Turner is an attacking threat out wide something we missed in the last 6 games.

Re: Jack Owens : Fri Nov 06, 2015 10:41 am  

Judder Man wrote:

Its much easier to put Turner back at centre and coached to improve his defence and make Wilkin into a settled loose forward pivotal role. We've now got Fages to cover half back/hooker positions Turner is an attacking threat out wide something we missed in the last 6 games.

I can see your point, but if Turner's defensive frailties haven't been coached out of him by now I can't see that changing anytime soon. He's just not a great decision maker when it comes to defending on the edges. It's a tricky one, as I'm not convinced Dominique Peyroux is any great shakes in that department either.

Re: Jack Owens : Fri Nov 06, 2015 10:50 am  

Dux wrote:

I can see your point, but if Turner's defensive frailties haven't been coached out of him by now I can't see that changing anytime soon. He's just not a great decision maker when it comes to defending on the edges. It's a tricky one, as I'm not convinced Dominique Peyroux is any great shakes in that department either.

I think the problem is if KC wants to play Turner at loose forward were do we play Wilkin, he lost (Wilkin) 5 kilo to allow him to play half back and is not big enough for second row these days and makes our pack too light.