from my memory a good number of the successful players you mentioned were thrown in at the deep end because they player occupying their position was injured. They subsequently proved themselves and stayed in the team.

In my view, young players should be patient and wait to be introduced slowly. There's no point adding them in for the sake of it, and they can't expect to walk into an established team. However, nights like last night were ideally suited to trying a few out and rest a few of the tiring legs. The scenario the team is in at the moment meant that the coach chose not to do that. Maybe that will happen on Sunday

I will indulge you - although Gareth makes a fair point.

McDermott is a man on the edge and is grasping at straws. Put yourself in his position and what would do? I mean what would you really do, play the players your boss has determined to be good enough to challenge the best sides in the league and keep your fingers cross they can do the business for you? Or throw a host of youngsters in press the self destruct button?

Yep I'd agree with that.
I'd have liked to have seen either Sinfield or McGuire (looked injured still) rested and Ward starting. Plus an opportunity for Singleton.
If Jones-Bishop had been favoured at full back then I would have wanted Chisholm brought in on the wing, but since Hardaker was at full back the centre options were (realistically) either Smith or Delaney, I seriously doubt whether Keinhorst is ready to be thrown into the most difficult defensive position in the sport in a game where the team is not fresh and not playing well.

None of the above, just wait and see!

Why is centre the most difficult position to defend in?
__________

The fact Keinhorst, who apparently was on the fringe of selection just recently, wasn't used last night would suggest he wasn't really that close. That said I share the view that despite receiving the apparent backing of the CEO, coach McDermott is living on the edge and is only looking for a 'W' in the next match.

Questions that need to be answered

Is quilted toilet tissue really worth the extra cost?

Oh yeah. Far less chance of breakage and stinky fingers.

Can you go the whole hog and mention Hitler, please? This is the internet after all.

Say what you like about Adolph,.......and there's quite a lot to be said, I suspect he had a firmer grasp of the meaning of the word defence than our present GruppenFuhrer's..................

Geez .. I was only trying to stimulate debate. I base my opinions on what I have seen and heard live and on TV/radio; no more. How "WORTHWHILE" that is I don't know, but nowhere have I ever professed to be the ultimate all knowing oracle ( unlike others ). There was no need for G1 to reply with a retort no doubt meant to provoke.... Can't see any other reason for the content. I chose to largely ignore it with a flippant riposte on his continued apostrophe faux pas.

Next thing I have a host of his apologists demanding I take heed of his absolutely sacrosant valid point that I am repeating myself.

I apologise for my crime ..... M c Dermott and the boys I adore you unquestioningly and I promise no more undue irreverence. You can all do no wrong. Bow bow scrape scrape..... I will attend every match too before I dare to pass adverse opinion again ...

Phooey

They didn't though. They got dropped into the team due to an injury crisis and then Iestyn left for Union.

Yes Nantwich shame on you for trying to talk about Rugby League on here of all places, luckily we had some of the message boards savants on hand to change the subject to toilet rolls. Next time you want to talk about RL go on a message board for cake lovers.

Whilst by no means fact, the reasons I would give would be
lots of big blokes running at you as close enough to forwards
quick nippy halves running at you
lots more space out wide than in the middle
centres usually playing the full 80 so no rest

I've no idea what the original claimer thinks about it though

Well Keinhorst plays centre for the Under 20's so he knows the position, granted its a step up playing against the 'big boys' but lets not make out as if the defensive side of the position is completely alien to him.

Does he defend two in from that position for the under 20's? as with McDermotts tactics, he would be if in first team.

No but neither did Delaney when McClennen played him at RIGHT centre in 2010, so doing that on the left centre wouldn't be much fun for him either.

One would hope that the club has a set pattern of play for the U20's and the 1st team. It would make it then a smooth transition from U20's to senior squad as everyone would know what they are doing.

The U20s outstanding results suggest this is unlikely.

Soooo come on ..what do you know ?

Oh he's happy to have one, but farm them out o lower league teams, hoping they will get an Admin job (see Halifax), so they dont come back

That made me laugh on the outside and cry on the inside.

At no point did I suggest that you should forfeit your right to opinion. It just annoys me ever so slightly when you spout off about aspects of a match you have not witnessed, and usually one of the first to do so. I never said you had to attend every match, but watching, or listening to commentary would be a good start. Your aversion to the idea of attending games, should you be able, is your choice, albeit poorly reasoned.

Nantwich, you're obviously entitled to your opinions, and entitled to post them. Equally, however, once you do it on a public forum, people are entitled to question how well informedthey are.

May I enquire as to how many times you've watched our successful academy team this year?

Incidentally, on the "what's the point in having the academy" question, I'd argue that providing players in the current season isn't really its core purpose at all. It is, surely, supposed to be providing FUTURE players, isn't it? I'm not saying that means academy players shouldn't play in the first team, just that if they don't that doesn't negate the whole purpose of its existence, as you appeared to suggest.

Further, at the risk of being labelled a G1 apologist, you ARE repeating yourself, and again, while you're entitled to do so, the rest of us are equally entitled to point out that we might find it boring to the point of being irritating enough that we respond to it. Which I suppose means you have succeeded in stimulating debate, it just might not be the debate you were aiming for.

Just saying.

I guess some opinions are more qualified than others but some take them more seriously than others. If my opinions annoy anybody "ever so slightly" then I am indeed flattered that my ( oft repeated ) opinions matter to that degree that they must be responded to.

Personally I would ignore them



Just saying.

I reserve the right to not have to further explain or justify myself .... Or is that verboten ?

I wouldn't be too flattered. I find lots of people annoying who have no particular bearing on my life. It isn't that they must be responded to , per se. It's more that responding to things is what internet forums are all about.

If I ignored every lunatic opinion on here I'd have to stop posting and find sopmething else to do with my time. And I'm feeling far too short on imagination for that.

You can reserve the right to do more or less whatever you want on a web forum, so you have no obligation to explain or justify yourself.