For those who are interested.....

Saints 19

1. Paul Wellens, 3. Michael Shenton, 4. Sia Soliola, 5. Francis Meli, 6. Lance Hohaia, 7. Jonny Lomax, 8. Josh Perry, 9. James Roby, 10. Louie McCarthy-Scarsbrook, 11. Tony Puletua, 12. Jon Wilkin, 13. Chris Flannery, 14. Anthony Laffranchi, 15. Mark Flanagan, 16. Paul Clough, 17. Gary Wheeler, 18. Shaun Magennis, 21. Tommy Makinson, 26. Josh Jones.

Common consensous on the Saints site is that Josh Jones and Magennis to miss out. Some debate over the starting line up in terms of forwards. But something similar to this would not surprise me..

1. Paul Wellens, 21. Tommy Makinson, 3. Michael Shenton, 17. Gary Wheeler, 5. Francis Meli, 6. Lance Hohaia, 7. Jonny Lomax
8. Josh Perry, 9. James Roby, 14. Anthony Laffranchi, 4. Sia Soliola, 11. Tony Puletua, 12. Jon Wilkin
10. LMS, 15. Mark Flangan, 13. Chris Flannery, 16. Paul Clough

In terms of teams we are quite even in points for and against.

In terms of form it's been a bit broken up by the Cup Games. But league form since we last met, but not including our game is

Leeds LWWLL
Saints WWWLW

Yes key forward Delaney has to start and I go along with your selections rhinoms. Except I would perhaps go with Hauraki over Griffin on the bench based on Griffin's drop in form and a dislike of 3 props on the bench. Having said that Bailey has looked good in the back row so he could cover those spots after his first stint at prop. But Hauraki has got great impact potential (positive and negative I know!) and I am a believer that the bench should provide players who are first and foremost capable of making a game changing contribution should plan A be failing.

Again I have to agree with you

Fair points JC but having been out so long i have doubts over Hauraki been match sharp enough for ST's hence i left him out with TMFMISL taking a sting in the BR.

Looking forward tommorow need to start putting some form together

The next 3 games are going to be crucial as to where we end up at the end of season.
Since the 8 team playoffs were introduced to finish 4th its taken 35 points in 2009 & 2010 and only 32 last year.
Currently Leeds have 14 pts so need to win around 10/11 of their remaining 15 games to be in with a good chance of top 4. If Leeds can put in a great effort over the next 3 tough games, SAINTS (h) BRADFORD (Magic Weekend) and WIGAN (h) and come out with the 6 points then that would leave us needing 7/8 wins from the following 12 games -

=#FF0000Warrington - A
Wakefield - H
Castleford - H
London - A
Hull - H
Bradford - H
Wakefield - A
HKR - A
Widnes - H
=#FF0000Catalans - A
Salford - H
=#FF0000Huddersfield - A

Highlighted the obvious difficult ones away to Wire, Catalans and Hudds, but POTENTIAL to win all the others. Given its Leeds we will probably slip up in 1 of those other games, possibly Hull KR away as we haven't travelled too well there recently. But like i said a big effort in the next 3 games from the team and top 4 is a great possiblity, its going to be tough especially against Saints and Wigan but we are at home, also we have lost are last 2 games against Bradford but we haven't lost yet at a Magic Weekend.

IMO Leeds will finish one place higher than they currently are. They won't pick up enough points against the current top six sides to mount that much of a challenge for fourth, but I can't see Bradford picking up enough points over the rest of the season to realistically displace Leeds from the top half of the table.

I suppose sixth might be attainable at a push if say Hull FC or Saints hit a bad patch, but the current top four are better than the rest of the competition IMO.

Are you actually suggesting Kirke shouldn't have been dropped?

I've no idea....I asked the question. DID he or BJB especially deserve to be 'dropped' ?

McShane is obviously not as good as Lunt or Burrow, but I certainly don't think [uHE[/u deserved to be 'dropped'.......I'm talking about the terminology used by Frosties.

Thats a little pessimistic. If we win our game in hand on everyone we go 6th, winning our game in hand on the top 3 would only put us 2 pts behind 2nd. If we can win 10 of our last 15 games that will give us 34 points which will put us roughly 4th (based on previous totals). I think that would be a fairly unambitious target for this squad of players.

Webb
Hall
Watkins
Ablett
Hardaker
Sinfield
McGuire
Leuluai
Lunt
Peacock
JJB
Delaney
Bailey

Burrow
Smith (making Ablett effectively another rotation forward)
Hauraki
Moore/Griffin/Clarkson

with probably Griffin and Clarkson to miss out for me.

Nantwich posting a team thats not made up of people under twenty. Am I going



(I agree with you BTW)

As a little aside sub-plot tonight keep your eye on Super Leagues Premier Soft-cock moaning little girl - John Wilkin. Lets see if he meets TMFMISL down the middle, or will he avoid him and knock up a cringe-worthy press release?

(I'm back. Been out of the country on a stag-do. If Hangover 3 needs any ideas I have a bucket full, not just full of sick and other bodily fluids. Happy Monday as well guys.)

Have those players been dropped, or just not picked. Bit of a difference

Exactly. McDermott said before the announcement of the 19 that with everybody back now, somebody will miss out each week.

For me though, I don't think BJB has done enough to warrant cementing a place anyway. And he was torn apat away at St Helens.

Really. Including Sinfield ? Webb ? McGuire ?

I'm not guessing at what he meant. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't.

Although I suspect, in the main it would probably more apply to those that have not quite cemented a spot.

Which squad members have cemented a spot ? And what is the criteria for cementing a spot ?

If Sinfield/Webb/Burrow played crap one week, do they still cement their spot for the following week ? Seems a little inconsistent/unfair if some squad members get preferential treatment over others IMO.

I'm not dissagreeing with you on that one. I'm just reading into what McDermott said, and how he works. He said one would drop out each week to rotate, whilst we had a full healthy squad. With how he works, that in the main would probably means players with spots not cemented.

Case in point, with or without a full squad available, Sinfield should have been rested for the Leigh game. He wasn't, and that is because McDermott dare not play a game without Sinfield. I mean, I accept we are a one man team where he is concerned, but against Leigh we could have managed even without him.

i think the extended turnaround is why sinfield still played even though i agree he should have been rested

Kirke, Moore, mcshane and hauraki all playing for 20s tonight before first team

I think it showed in the games this season against the likes of Bradford, Huddersfield, Saints when neither Burrow nor McGuire played that we are far from being a one man team.

I think you will find David, that had Sinfield not played in those games you mention, that the result would have been much worse. We are very much a one man team in that regards.

I doubt if you took Sinfield out and put McGuire and Burrow back in the result against Saints could have been any worse. Against Bradford the attack was so abject there is no way if Burrow & Mcguire had played instead of Sinfield that it could have been as impotent as it was that night.

I remember having a similar discussion with G1 back in 2006 when to quote his words "Sinfield must be tired of picking up winning pay" when we lost a couple of games when he was out and thenwe won a couple when he came back - that was until McGuire got injured and then what happened - Gareth will no doubt recount his afternoon at Odsal against Huddersfield



This is far from a one man team - without the options that McGuire, Burrow and Webb provide the attack is one dimensional and lacks any kind of cutting edge.

That puts an end to speculation then

Webb
Smith
Watkins
Hardaker
Hall
Sir Kev
Mags
Leuluai
Robbie/Lunt
Peacock
JJB
Delaney
Ablett

Griffin
Lunt/Robbie
Clarkson
TMFMISL