I'm a little surprised that Sykes and Platt have been publicly shamed by being given the 28 and 29 squad numbers. Is this in relation to playing form, or training/off-field misdemeanors?

IIRC wasn't Sykes one of the first players given a new contract by Potter? Also, Platt seemed to be earning himself something of a better reputation playing at centre last season, at least from what I have been reading on this forum. Bit odd that he's been seemingly shown the door.

Is it just the case that Potter has brought in better players in Lulia and Purtell, or is he using two of McNamara's backline stalwarts as a scapegoat for a poor first season in charge?

Anyone think either of them will play for the Bulls in 2012? Should they?

You hear that apparently they were told they were free to talk to other clubs. What is the source of that suggestion?

The fact that they haven't done so appears to be either:

They want to fight for their place.
They are happy to take the cash for doing nowt.
They couldn't find any other takers.
The rumour is not true.

No reason to believe it is anything other than he believes the other players are better. Nothing to indicate off-field misdemeanors at all.

Platt was better at centre, but his defence was still not the best, although for me, he always appeared to be putting the effort in. Sykes is a guy in the wrong place at the wrong time at the wrong club. He's a jack-of all trades, master of none. Another who's effort cannot be faulted, and last year against Huddersfield at home by all accounts (as I missed that game

) looked top class, followed by mediocrity straight afterwards.

Both will probably play at some point this coming season if they remain at the club once the usual injuries kick in to Walker, Ainscough, Kearney etc

The rumour about them being told they could leave seemed a bit odd given that Potter gave both new contracts less than a year earlier. Having said that Sykes hardly figured last year and Platt was in and out, I'm not sure how much of that was down to injury but I got the impression they hadn't impressed the coach.

At the post season fans forum Potter mentioned how some players on the fringes "weren't good enough" and lets be honest I think he was talking about these two. Defensively they've never inspired confidence and in attack rarely threaten. They're both capabale of the odd good game but seem to lack consistency.

It does beg the question as to why they were given lengthy new deals only to then see us sign players from the NRL to play in those same positions. I sometimes wonder if we actually have a plan when it comes to recruitment or if we just make it up as we go along.

I think the reason for them getting longer deals is down to having the whole Orford thing having over last year's recruitment.

We had a large chunk of the salary cap that we didn't know if we could use it or if it was taken. So offering extending deals to utility players who are likely not on large wages to begin with makes sense.

I think giving them 28 and 29 is simply a way of signalling to everyone - including the two players - that they aren't in the coaches plans for the new season.

I expect that once we get close to the season they'll either end up signing for someone like Wakefield or London, be shipped out on a season long loan to Halifax or Fev. There's really no point in having disaffected and/or unwanted people hanging around the camp.

I was going to be fair to MP by saying the re-signing was done whilst he was still at Stains, so he wouldn't have been, shall we say, quite up to speed with events at Odsal, however, even as boss at Knowsley Rd he would, or you would expect he would, have a reasonable idea about regular SL players (as they then were under Macca) in order to coach his own team, so maybe that thought doesn't hold water.

It probably is fair to ask whether it was [ientirely[/i Potter's decision though, or whether it was taken under advice from elsewhere.

At the end of the day though, the problem was the previous decision ie. to award them long contracts, not the current one. I suppose, I go along with most, who believe it means they are on the outer as far as Mick's thinking on the line up is concerned and despite the clowns who will, no doubt be screaming that we should have 'got rid', as though contracted players could be simply 'magicked' away, I think Potter has done as much as is possible with the situation, which I agree isn't really a lot.

Platt signed a new 2 year deal in April this year, Potter will have had at least 4 months of working directly with him before that announcement. He surely must have known what he was doing then? On Sykes I can see how he was re-signed pewrhaps due to his status as quite versatile, home grown and (hopefully) not a high earner.

Platts the one I dont understand. Sykes was re-signed before Potter arrived, although with his approval, so presumably he's had a look at him over season and decided he doesnt fit into his plans. Platt on the other hand was re-signed by Potter after he'd had a pre-season and a few months of gametime to observe him. Then a couple of months later he no longer deems him good enough. Dont think anyone would argue that Platt is good enough to be a starting player but as a backup player dont see him as such a bad player to have on the books.

The Sykes deal was very odd. At the time we were signing lots of players on 1 year deals and releasing 10-12 players. Sykes' previous contract had only been a 1 year deal so the jury was out and then, after another season where he was poor he gets a 3 year contract. It didn't take Mick Potter to know he wasn't up to it at either centre or stand off.

Platt, on the other was doing relatively OK until he was subbed off against Wigan in the cup, dropped for a number of games and never really regained Potter's confidence.

Well there's definitely something odd going on.

Maybe Sykes has got "those photos" that McAvoy had all those years?

I didn't realise it was quite as late as that when Platty re-signed, sort of makes it difficult to let MP off the hook I guess. I wouldn't expect that he's on vast amounts though so maybe the coach feels he can do a job in the squad. To be fair to Platty he's looked decent at centre on occasions (with ball in hand, at least) and if he's not blocking the path of a younger player maybe it's for the best. It would be interesting to know the rationale behind it.

I was lead to believe that Sykes is definitely out of the picture but Platt was told he woudn't be first choice but if he was prepared to fight for his place he would probably get some game time during the season. Platt apparently said he was prepared to fight for a spot

If that's the case, good luck to him.

As someone has already stated, he's not a bad utility player to have.

Platt still has abit of speed and was one of the players who did improve last season like Bulliac said previous, playing as a reserve centre or wing when we get hit (inevitably) with injuries

Wonder what Sykes has done to burn his bridges then, apart from the obvious, but I'd have expected Potter to know about all that before he re-signed him.

I kinda liked Sykes

I thought he was useful without ever being top drawer. It was nice of Huddersfield to make him look like Greg Inglis for once in his career.

I can't understand the extension to Sykes' contract in the first place, but you do have to give Sykes credit for playing where he is asked, and he's got a much better try scoring record than Platt. I think what counts against him right now as far as Potter is concerned are his defence and age, so it would not surprise me if Platt has been told that hes effectively Shads replacement. Sykes on the other hand still has it to do a job for the right team, and I hope that happens for him.

Positives and Negatives, imo, for both players

They're both able to cover multiple positions across the back line. The flexibility that provides us is an asset in a physical game like RL where player injuries are pretty much a guarantee through the season.

Neither are likely to be among the highest earners at the club, which added to their flexibility in position makes them value for money.

Sykes also has the home grown status, which given the current rules on the numbers we have to have give him added value.

Now on to the negatives.

The stats of both players are a far cry from the stats of players in similar positions across SL; metres, carries, try assists, they're all way below what the top players in the league are producing.

So while Sykes and Platt are have great attributes to be squad players, they're not at the skill and ability levels needed if we're to return to the top of SL as starting players.

And with the emergence of players like Whitehead, Burgess, O'Brien, Bateman etc Sykes' home grown status becomes less valuable as there are youngsters with better potential and ability coming through.

I would imagine that, while both players have been good servants to the club, I'd not expect either to get contract extensions at the end of their current deals unless they were on very small deals.

I'd imagine part of problem is that at time they were re-signed they were effectively starting players and their wages would reflect that. So effectively we're paying two squad utility players at starting player wage levels. Theres no reason for either to accept a pay cut and would imagine any club they could possibly move to would also be looking at them as squad players so also a lower wage. Suppose it depends how much either of them wants to play on beyond their current deals. If their looking at retiring anyway when these deals run out then they might as well sit tight and take the higher money for turning up to training. If they have any ambition to carry on then they would be better served losing a bit of money and playing for someone else.

Any player that was prepared to just take the money to train and play the odd game wouldn't be worth keeping. Such an attitude stinks.

Not sure I fully agree with that.

At the end of the day, these sportsmen only play for a small number of years. The players in question both have families and need to provide and offer security.

There's no difference between these players and you/I. Would I take a huge pay cut if I'm not enjoying my job? Probably not, still have a mortgage and mouths to feed!

thats point I was trying to make. If they were looking at retiring at end of current deal then they arent going to be too bothered what people think of there attitude. There main concern is getting maximum possible income in what remains of their rugby career.

I know what your saying but as per bullseye's comments, I wouldn't think bad of either players attitudes if they wanted to stay at the bulls and fight for their place. You might even argue that their efforts in training might even push purtell and lulia to train harder!