Hi everyone,

Thanks for the replies.

Rhinoms - I totally agree with you, some of the performances are seriously poor and so I do think we have the right to be critical TO A POINT. If you take the most recent games we've played against Saints, Wigan and Warrington I'm not sure you're being entirely fair there - we had a really good first half against Saints at home, and at Warrington, while the first 30 minutes was really disappointing, I thought we defended really well in the last 50, doing some really good things and showing a bit more what we can do. Wigan was a thoroughly miserable performance but I thought the first 10 minutes really took it out of us and it was our lack of composure which ultimately left the remaining 70 looking desperate.

Regarding your comments on Kevin Sinfield, I've watched the game back on Sky over the last couple of days and the guy is absolutely everywhere; to be honest, with what I understand of his mentality, I think he's maybe trying too hard to make up for other people's mistakes, and the fact is, that's going to catch up with him. He shouldn't be defending out wide but we don't know if that's Mac, Sinny, or other players moving out of position. If I'm being honest, I'm hoping like hell he doesn't get picked for the Exiles game so he can have a bit of a rest!

Mac offered us a fair explanation of why he didn't use Lunt off the bench against Saints and while I must admit, I would use all of my subs, I thought his explanation was fair. In terms of the forwards looking tired, I would just point out that sometimes it does take a player a few minutes to really get into "game mode"; each player is different, and this is something else Mac has to take into consideration.

I also agree with you that some of the under 20s maybe do deserve a go while we're not playing well, but this isn't a simple thing to decide either. As you'll know, Superleague is so much more intense and physical than playing in the 20s, even when we're playing a side such as Wakefield next week, and some of the 20s guys won't yet be mature enough to cope with that. I strongly believe that to give these guys the best chance, unless we have an injury problem, we have to time their debut and subsequent games right so that we can keep their confidence up and not have them simply get battered! I also have to think about some of the first-team guys who are confidence players - they might not be playing well now, but come the play-offs, we might need their experience and skill; if they get dropped for an under-20s player and their confidence becomes shot, we may just be shooting ourselves in the foot.

Again, I'm certainly not suggesting that no-one deserves criticism and I don't think I suggest that at any point in my original post. I just think that any criticism is mis-directed and I really disagree with those who boo, heckle and name call our coach.

To be honest its nice to have a positive poster on here. I'm kind of split on the subject though, i think while McDermott needs to be questioned for the performance (opposite to what the OP thinks) i agree with him that the criticism shouldn't go into abuse territory. Healthy and non-too-personal criticism is ok, going onto booing during games, name calling and disrespectful comments i think is unnecessary.

I believe Swiftcorn got a bit of a ban following an argument on the VT with an Aussie about Aussie Rules Football and claiming he knew Australia better than a guy who lives there. Don't know if it applies to here though but his absence is greatly appreciated.

Quote ="Gotcha"Come on folks. This is another AP/Keith alias. Don't get sucked in.'" It's not really a case of getting sucked in, as others have commented it's remained a civil discussion. I've always been notoriously poor at identifying the men behind the 'characters' but agree it's likely to be one of the regulars. Either way it's provided an outlet for some frustration. Will it change anyone's view - I doubt it. rhinowinorlose probably still thinks Henry Paul wasn't replaced at the Harlequins and that he was always a leading role model off the field : news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 038590.stm I'm guessing the Quins were just grateful he wasn't the chauffeur driver behind the wheel of that Mercedes S280.

Quote ="Gotcha"Come on folks. This is another AP/Keith alias. Don't get sucked in.'" It's not really a case of getting sucked in, as others have commented it's remained a civil discussion. I've always been notoriously poor at identifying the men behind the 'characters' but agree it's likely to be one of the regulars. Either way it's provided an outlet for some frustration. Will it change anyone's view - I doubt it. rhinowinorlose probably still thinks Henry Paul wasn't replaced at the Harlequins and that he was always a leading role model off the field : news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 038590.stm I'm guessing the Quins were just grateful he wasn't the chauffeur driver behind the wheel of that Mercedes S280.

Agreed. It's a discussion forum, this is a discussion. Does seem to wind a few people up though - not sure why.

I think in short they players have to take the criticism for the way they play and they shouldn't be exempt from criticism but equally the manager has to take some blame for the standard of play and tactics used in the game.