Re: Squad for Wire (Magic) : Mon Sep 06, 2021 9:46 am  

nathan_rugby wrote:

What is the cock up?

We were told if Bullock starts we would lose a sub and from what happened Lam decided to lose a sub so he wasn't forced to re-shuffle and start Bullock?

What i don't get is why this needed to be so difficult and why we had to lose a sub, incorrectly or not. Just start bullock!

Lam is quoted as saying to fit bullock into the 13 we would have to shuffle about 5 players, i am confused at how this is so. from how i see it -

farrell moves to centre to cover gildart (a change that was 100% happening anyway no matter what scenario)
Partington drops back from prop to second row
bullock moves into starting prop.

Only 1 position change realistically as farrell was moving to centre in any scenario, this didnt need to be as difficult as we made it. Since bullock only played 8 mins i think somebody said? i am guessing it is the case that lam just really didn't want to play bullock either way. If he had started we would get 2 stints out of him rather then one pointless cameo in the second half. I can't wait for this season to be over as i have had enough of lam at this point

Re: Squad for Wire (Magic) : Mon Sep 06, 2021 10:48 am  

BoredWiganer wrote:

What i don't get is why this needed to be so difficult and why we had to lose a sub, incorrectly or not. Just start bullock!

Lam is quoted as saying to fit bullock into the 13 we would have to shuffle about 5 players, i am confused at how this is so. from how i see it -

farrell moves to centre to cover gildart (a change that was 100% happening anyway no matter what scenario)
Partington drops back from prop to second row
bullock moves into starting prop.

Only 1 position change realistically as farrell was moving to centre in any scenario, this didnt need to be as difficult as we made it. Since bullock only played 8 mins i think somebody said? i am guessing it is the case that lam just really didn't want to play bullock either way. If he had started we would get 2 stints out of him rather then one pointless cameo in the second half. I can't wait for this season to be over as i have had enough of lam at this point

Partington isn’t a secondrow forward.

Re: Squad for Wire (Magic) : Mon Sep 06, 2021 10:56 am  

jonh wrote:

Partington isn’t a secondrow forward.

He isn't a prop forward to me either, dominated too easily in that position for me. He would benefit from running further out wide. Pretty sure he has played there before too.

If we are going to be pedantic about it though, include smithies in the rotation him second row, partington loose. Still not 5 players swapping, a sub up and more potential use out of bullock

Re: Squad for Wire (Magic) : Mon Sep 06, 2021 11:02 am  

Lam just seems hell bent on making life as difficult for himself and the team as possible

Re: Squad for Wire (Magic) : Mon Sep 06, 2021 11:27 am  

BoredWiganer wrote:

He isn't a prop forward to me either, dominated too easily in that position for me. He would benefit from running further out wide. Pretty sure he has played there before too.

If we are going to be pedantic about it though, include smithies in the rotation him second row, partington loose. Still not 5 players swapping, a sub up and more potential use out of bullock

Not being a pedant just stating a fact.

I agree that would maybe have been a more sensible rotation however Lam clearly doesn’t rate Bullock and certainly not as a starting Prop so he made the call he did.

I can’t comment on the game as I’ve not seen it, I do know Partington however is definitely an edge forward.

Re: Squad for Wire (Magic) : Mon Sep 06, 2021 11:38 am  

Lam was only arguing with the RFL because he didn't know the rules. That has been the rules for years and years.
This just isn't funny. A head coach who doesn't know the rules of the game?

Time has to come when prospective head coaches have to take a rules and competence test and have to have passed it before they can be appointed.

The club IL/Rads should charge Lam with bringing the club into disrepute.
A head coach who doesn't know the interchange rules?
It beggars belief, it really does!

Re: Squad for Wire (Magic) : Mon Sep 06, 2021 11:40 am  

jonh wrote:

Not being a pedant just stating a fact.

I agree that would maybe have been a more sensible rotation however Lam clearly doesn’t rate Bullock and certainly not as a starting Prop so he made the call he did.

I can’t comment on the game as I’ve not seen it, I do know Partington however is definitely an edge forward.

What’s an edge forward John?
Never heard of the term before.

Re: Squad for Wire (Magic) : Mon Sep 06, 2021 11:45 am  

jonh wrote:

Not being a pedant just stating a fact.

I agree that would maybe have been a more sensible rotation however Lam clearly doesn’t rate Bullock and certainly not as a starting Prop so he made the call he did.

I can’t comment on the game as I’ve not seen it, I do know Partington however is definitely an edge forward.

Fair enough, can live with him at loose but dont think he has the size or impact currently to compete as a front rower. Will have to agree to disagree on this one.

On bullock, the fact lam doesn't want to play him at all makes it all even worse. Why have a player at 18th man that you don't want to play under any circumstance and waste this position in the first place, always a chance a plyer will pull out in warmup. He basically played him for 8 mins to give another forward a breather, not because he wanted to play him at all. Shouldn't even be 18th man if that is the case.

Re: Squad for Wire (Magic) : Mon Sep 06, 2021 1:08 pm  

Itchy Arsenal wrote:

What’s an edge forward John?
Never heard of the term before.

Usually your secondrow if they are strike players who are looking to exploit the wider channels.

I think it’s probably a term that has come into the game around the same time as middle forwards, ie your prop rotation and these days more often than not your 13.

Thinking about it it’s quite sad that terms such as middle and edge forwards is taking over from the specialised terms.

I’d say someone like Faz, KPP and Bateman are edge forwards for us, where by someone like Smithies who is a secondrow is probably more of a middle.

Re: Squad for Wire (Magic) : Mon Sep 06, 2021 1:10 pm  

BoredWiganer wrote:

Fair enough, can live with him at loose but dont think he has the size or impact currently to compete as a front rower. Will have to agree to disagree on this one.

On bullock, the fact lam doesn't want to play him at all makes it all even worse. Why have a player at 18th man that you don't want to play under any circumstance and waste this position in the first place, always a chance a plyer will pull out in warmup. He basically played him for 8 mins to give another forward a breather, not because he wanted to play him at all. Shouldn't even be 18th man if that is the case.

I agree re Partington. However even if he plays at loose he is actually playing as a middle and an extra prop.

I like Partingtons attitude but we do need to add some more bulk and power to him in this offseason as he lacks in that department.