: Sun Feb 15, 2009 12:42 pm  

Michigan red wrote:

You are Mr's Nash and I claim my £5

Do you take postal order? Only my wrist is playing up again to write a cheque

: Sun Feb 15, 2009 12:43 pm  

to michigan red does you comment mean that myler is untouchable considering there is no difference between 6+7

: Sun Feb 15, 2009 12:49 pm  

Fatboys Limb wrote:

Pretty much agree with Michigan Red's post too.

However, whilst I agree we looked weaker with Leuluai, Nash and Paul instead of Cashmere, Stapleton and Alker, I thought Leuluais had a good game.

Also, whilst I agree that the backs weren't the stand-outs players in general, I thought Henry looked really good - went looking for work, sound in defence, took his try well.

Alker was different class though - if that'what losing the captaincy does, we should've taken the armband off him years ago!

I think the problem is that now our 1st choice pack is looking so strong the 2nd line off the bench are not as good, strong or dominant. Short of having morley and peacock coming off the bench it wuldn't be as noticable. I do think however that I would prefere Ratchford to Paul any day of the week

: Sun Feb 15, 2009 1:11 pm  

EVERTON1 wrote:

to michigan red does you comment mean that myler is untouchable considering there is no difference between 6+7

Not in the slightest, it mearly means that Myler and Smith looked very solid and will be as good a starting halves pair as we have had for a good few years, and also that Myler will learn more playing next to Smith than he will next to Ratchford.
For me Ratchford needs to be first name on the bench every week and Swain looked like he could move to hooker if needed and Ratchford could play along the back line and Henry move to 13, it's all about options and Ratchford offers a great deal more than Paul now unless maybe your the BBC.

: Sun Feb 15, 2009 1:17 pm  

Fungus The Muffin Man wrote:

Do you take postal order? Only my wrist is playing up again to write a cheque

Well if you keep doing that now your engaged i'd be worried if I was the future Mr's Muiffin, get your Mum to dig out your old boxing gloves as i'm sure that would cure the problem like it did years ago .

: Sun Feb 15, 2009 1:27 pm  

Thought Nash fell off a few tackles and his miss on De la court down the middle led to their 2nd try. Where was Sidlow? I'd rather see him as interchange.

It's a shame that we can't find a way of getting longer than 20 mins out of our props before changing them. Are they really that knackered after 20 mins? The same with Alker. Why the need to spell him? We never used to.

: Sun Feb 15, 2009 1:48 pm  

My first thought is we changed to many players at the same time. After a superb opening 20 minutes we took Malc, Stapo and Cashmere all off. Unbelieveable, I couldnt understand why Shaun Mc was playing at. The biggest bemusement for me though was taking Swain off and puting Sibbit (I think) at loose. Crazy tactics.

Hopefully Shaun Mc will learn from last night and we wont see anything like it again. Also, Ratchford and Turner must make the 17.

: Sun Feb 15, 2009 2:04 pm  

Perhaps Sky were dictating the changes to even up the game just like at Leeds last week, how bad for RL if we would have been 40 nil up at halftime?

But a very entertaining match, just wish the Garlic cruncher in the middle made clearer signals, especially when wiping the tackle count just sticking his fist in the air.



bring on Wakefield!!!

: Sun Feb 15, 2009 2:18 pm  

Sheddy wrote:

My first thought is we changed to many players at the same time. After a superb opening 20 minutes we took Malc, Stapo and Cashmere all off. Unbelieveable, I couldnt understand why Shaun Mc was playing at. The biggest bemusement for me though was taking Swain off and puting Sibbit (I think) at loose. Crazy tactics.

Hopefully Shaun Mc will learn from last night and we wont see anything like it again. Also, Ratchford and Turner must make the 17.

I have to agree that I was scratching my head at this, it was possibly a pre arranged tactic but if that was the case you dont go making that kind of change when Swain was playing out of his skin.

Can't see that Turner is going to get much of a look in at 13 with Sweain playing like that, but agree if not both Ratchford and Turner one most certainly does have to get a bench spot, think possibly when the wether warms up both will probably get a look in, it's a nice problem to have to a change though.

: Sun Feb 15, 2009 2:25 pm  

I heartily concur with Sheddys latest post. It really was a tale of two teams. Understandebly our pace and intensity dropped when we made changes and showed what an art making substitutions can be. Hopefully Alker has proved his value not just when he is on the pitch but also how it affects us as a team when he is benched. What also impressed me was how we came back when Celtic pressed us, at 20-16 the next score was vital and we were able to get that score and go on and win it. All the new lads contributed but i was particually impressed with our very own "Richie Cunningham" Luke Swain, thought he was excellant.