Re: Fifteen men : Mon Jul 04, 2011 2:48 pm  

Saint Simon wrote:

Its not a conspiracy, they have now had two years to prove themselves, and they havn't. Simple.

Dixon was out for most of 2009 with a wrist injury and has played 30 games in total, Magennis has played 18 they are both only 21 years of age. They are not being given enough game time to prove themselves the question that you have not answered is why is Royce rotating those 3 players and only playing them short minutes instead of letting them go on dual registration or loan? Do you think it benefits them or the club to have players playing 15 to 20 minutes a fortnight!

Re: Fifteen men : Mon Jul 04, 2011 3:04 pm  

RC64 wrote:

Dixon was out for most of 2009 with a wrist injury and has played 30 games in total, Magennis has played 18 they are both only 21 years of age. They are not being given enough game time to prove themselves the question that you have not answered is why is Royce rotating those 3 players and only playing them short minutes instead of letting them go on dual registration or loan? Do you think it benefits them or the club to have players playing 15 to 20 minutes a fortnight!

Maybe noone wanted them, or Royce (rightly with hindsight) thought we might need them to cover injuries. The simple fact is that with a fully fit squad, none would be in the 17, esp with Royce's tactic of having a back on the bench.

Re: Fifteen men : Mon Jul 04, 2011 3:14 pm  

With dual registration they can be recalled at any time, we have recalled Tom Armstrong from Leigh even though we are not playing him - cut short his development he was getting on well at Leigh.

Even with a loan agreement this can be arranged week by week so would still be available to cover for injuries.

We win no matter what the outcome, thats why I can't understand the logic.

Re: Fifteen men : Mon Jul 04, 2011 3:21 pm  

Saint Simon wrote:

Maybe noone wanted them, or Royce (rightly with hindsight) thought we might need them to cover injuries. The simple fact is that with a fully fit squad, none would be in the 17, esp with Royce's tactic of having a back on the bench.

True but then how often would you get a team fully fit for every game. The youth players have had alot more game time this year than they could possibly have anticipated, Ok the pack was not hit as hard as the backs, but still there was a period when we where needing the young players to step up. We have 5 first grade props in my eyes and 1 of them will leave next year, we have never took to the field this year with 5 fully fit props. Apart from the first few games Royce does not want to play a half back styled loose forward. He wants 3 props on the field at all times it seams.

However when theinterchanges come in, because we don't have 5 fit props, it can leave us with 1 prop on the field at times and a bunch of 2nd rowers. I can see why he likes to start with 3 props, but it does tend to leave us weak mid game when say Graham and TP have gone off, and there is just Perry or just LMS carrying the ball. You would think it would click with Royce and he could see that we are going to get hit by making these players play longer.

I still don't see why we can have 2 props on the bench under normal circumstances (ie one of our props being injured). During the course of a normal season to have 5 props play for a whole match every match we would need at least 6 or 7 props in the squad to account for injury.

We may get a full team at some point this year, but surely there needs to be some flexibilty with TP at loose. Putting Wilkin or even flannery there would give us a better interchange balance through the game for me. Then come the time when we have 5 fit props sure play the A plan.

I still think Royce has done great this year considering the injuries early on.