Quote Gotcha="Gotcha"You seem to be making up a lot of assumptions there to form an opinion, yet don't seem to be allowing me one..'"
I am trying to teasel out what your solution is, as you are being deliberately obscure. You stated that we should not play a half at hooker so that must mean you would play R Ward at any cost? Or any one else except a half back?
Quote Gotcha="Gotcha"I may not get paid to be critical, but I pay enough money into the club to be allowed to voice a criticism, that is not debatable..'"
Well what is certainly not in debate is that that you enjoy the full allowance to voice criticism as is your wont.
Quote Gotcha="Gotcha"Your view is that the back up hooker is untested, and my view is that is the fault of the coach. But regardless of that I don't accept he is any more untested than Lilley, who he played against Catalans and Saints, or Golding who he played against Saints. What is really the case, is he doesn't think Ward is up to it fullstop, not untested..'"
No the back up hooker is Burrow or Sinfield. The coaches know from the training field if a player is ready to step up. Robbie Ward has had several chances in the 1st team and again at Hunslet and although I am not privy to their thinking it is obvious to me that they have serious doubts about him currently. So you should not be critical of the coach for not putting RW to the test if they deemed him not ready. Whereas Lilley and Golding are regarded as ready.
Quote Gotcha="Gotcha"
He may well be right on Ward of course, but is it better to go with a specialist hooker playing it tough for this level, or disrupting your whole team plan by sticking a finger in the air and hoping something works? My solution, of which I am not paid to make is that you go with the specialist hooker..'"
"better" in your opinion but not at all costs surely? you are failing to acknowledge that young Ward may not be up to it yet. You have no idea how he has performed in training or if he has progressed or regressed neither do you know his mental toughness. The coaches have a duty to young players and you cannot expect a 18/19 year old to be physically up to a long stint at 9 with limited SL experience. Moving Sinfield to 9 is not disrupting the whole team. And he has high level experience in this position. Are you saying young Ward is a better hooker than Sinfield?
Quote Gotcha="Gotcha"That doesn't mean to say that Sinfield is not up to the role, but whilst you can't replace Sinfield in an even more important role in the team, to me it is the only option. And besides this, Sinfield does not give us the speed form dummy half that we have relied on all year to get the best out of the forwards, so in effect you are actually effecting two important elements of your team play.'"
I do understand this point but we have been faced with a set of unfortunate circumstances having to play without Aiton, Burrow and Sutcliffe meaning a compromise somewhere.
You have been making out that this is all down to the loss of Aiton which if so would mean the most important thing is to replace Aiton with the best person for this position.... which is what Mac has done.
However it is not just about the loss of Aiton is it? Burrow has quietly been very effective off the bench whether at 9 or 7 and his loss should not be underestimated. Add to this Watkins being injured on top of losing JJB and finally (I hope) Keinhorst and the side is totally disrupted. Once momentum is lost form and timing can go out the window. While all the the top 8 rested we have had to play a Wembley Cup final in the middle of all this which always has a draining effect too.
So there is no guarantee that had Aiton played in our two recent losses we would have won because most of the other players were well under par while both opponents put in best performances.
