Olbison has got to play before Sykes or Royston. The lad is playing really well and is the future of our team.

Tackles better than them anyway!

[url=http://bradfordbulls.wordpress.com/2011/03/24/injury-gods-kind-ahead-of-saints/Potter has headaches of a good kind ahead of Saints clash[/url

Well i have to say when we play saints im never confident but if we play to what i know we can we could collect the 2. I just rnt very confident about doing it..... ill be still there though and hopefully we will turn up! whats everyone elses thoughts

We'll be givin 'em a Basil Fawlty-stylee good thrashing.

I would assume everyone else's thoughts are in the 6 page thread [url=http://viewtopic.php?f=19&t=487303here[/url

I could be wrong but I'm sure when we played Wire in the play-offs last year, Matty Smith wasn't names in the 19 man squad, but was still able to play

If someone gets injured during training you can call another player up, cant just swap it and change kit once uve named 19..you can however pick anyone from that 19 up until kick off...should be an hr before or when ref gets teamsheet..but seen a player pull up in warm up then been pulled out.

if someone has a genuine medical reason for being withdrawrn from 19 man squad thats fine. Its when teams abuse it, like leeds putting smith and not even making pretense that player they withdrew was injured, that it annoys me. In this case saints took a gamble that moore would be cleared. He wasnt and they shouldnt be allowed to replace him in 19 man squad. Not saying their going to try to, just going by precedent leeds set last year.

edit: seems like sts are allowed to ignore 19 man squad naming system same as leeds as moore has now been replaced in their squad for tomorrow. Whats the point of naming a 19 man squad if you can chop and change it at will?

Well Saints named Moore as he was appealing his ban. If they'd not named him and he was successful with the appeal he'd not be allowed to play

thats fair enough. but now he's failed in getting ban overturned they've withdrawn him and named someone else in the 19 in his place. Should that be allowed or should they have to stick to the 19 they originally named and now have to pick a 17 from the remaining 18?

It's no different to replacing a player who's unavailable due to injury. They're allowed to do it within the rules so it's not a problem IMO

are they though? what are the actual rules with regard to the 19 man squad. I've never managed to find them anywhere. I was under impression it was more a guideline from RFL rather than an actual rule ( at least that was common comment when leeds did similar last year with lee smith). But I also though only valid reason to allow a player named in 19 to be changed was an injury.

I've had trouble finding anything about it either. Wanted to know where we stood last week if all 3 of our returnees brokedown Sat/Sun. All I found was this:

Squad Announcement System

• Before each Engage Super League and Carnegie Challenge Cup fixture, each Engage Super League club must announce a squad of 19 players it will choose from for that match 48 hours before a game.
• Squad announcements will be made by 2pm on the appropriate day.
• Clubs cannot announce players who are not both correctly registered with the RFL and confirmed as a member of a club’s first team squad.

Had a table with what day the squad is to be announced (Wed for Friday games). No mention of replacing people in the 19 man squad. Vague rules as ever!

Sinats fans don't know whether to be confident going in to this one. The Leeds game was a blast, but before that we've looked poor.

Watch out for Big Francis Meli continuing in the centre. Its a big talking point about whether that's his better position than wing - he certainly adds a lot in attack, but could your lads out-think him when he's defending?

It will also be interesting to see how the Uber-young pairing of Lomax and Gaskell will go in the halves. Can they give another good display, or were they running on enthusiasm last week? Lomax is the box of tricks, Gaskell is the steady hand and the kicking game.

No Kyle Briggs tonight as Mick potter keeps the faith in the same 17 that ended Castleford's 100% start to the season last weekend.

How do you know?

Can understand leaving Briggs out this week. Not best game to introduce a new halves pairing tbf. Thought walker would be in though.

Potter said he would pick on form at the start of the season and the 17 from last week didn't put a foot wrong.

Briggs ultimately needs to win his place back into the 17 with the side playing well at the minute, plus how harsh would it have been on Sykes if he had been dropped for this game after his defensive effort last week?

Walker won't be risked I suspect so he'll be back next week for the game against Harlequins.

I thought Briggs would feature as I thought we might need his kicking game, but I couldn't think of a single player who deserved to miss out after last week.

Considering we've taken far better teams to Saints and got stuffed I see no reason to suggest we won't get thumped tonight. Apart from the odd blip where we've won, a good stuffing is traditional.

Ah but we're not taking the team to Saints are we, we're taking them to Widnes

Show some faith

I still feel we could do with Briggs for his kicking alone. Not taking anything away from the win last week, the kicking game was pretty average, in fact at times poor.

i think that if its true briggs and walker been left out its a poor decision by potter im afraid. Our kicking was still extremely poor last week vs tigers and if we do that against saints we will get hammered simple as. I know it would have been harsh dropping sykes but for me he is too inconsistent and saints will target him tonight. Poor decision if this is true. And im sorry to say but i can see us getting hammered tonight

Mind games per chance?

And all due respect Mick, but I can't see Potter giving you the team news hours before kick off.....