What do we do for backrow?

I imagine most will say Bateman to miss out with a backrow of Elima, Whitehead and Langley, but should we really drop Bateman? The lad is showing some great stuff at the moment and I'd like to see him remain in the run on side. Have a feeling he will iss out from when Potter said he's doing a good job covering the injuries AT,

I'd like to see a backrow of 11. Elima, 12, Langley and 13, Bateman.

Just feel Langley would be better crashing on to the ball out wide against some of these smaller HB's and Bateman has shown he's got some strength and some hands to mix it up in the middle.

What do you reckon and what would you like to see?

Could it be that Elima has to get back in to the starting back row? Tricky one to call but the burnout argument could come into play (I don't always agree with this btw). Whitehead was good tonight and I think it was langleys best knock tonight.manukafoa looks to be a useful addition too, good competition in the pack now,

Kopczak
Diskin
Langley
Elima
Whitehead
Bateman

L'Estrange
Manuokafoa
Hargreaves
Burgess/Scruton

Not a bad pack/bench at all that.

Pretty harsh to leave whitehead out although until he improves his missed tackle and error rate it's probably warranted.

Pretty harsh to leave whitehead out although until he improves his missed tackle and error rate it's probably warranted.

Elima is the enforcer, why not put batsmen in and slot langers as prop interchange alongside Scruton and Manase, langers would add the impact were missing off the bench

Sounds a reasonable option.

Elima's return will give a deserved rest for Bateman.
Bateman has had two outstanding games and proved to be an exceptional prospect.
However, lets be sensible, ffs he is only 18 years old and does not yet have the resilient body of a gnarled 28 year old back row forward.
It would be criminal to play him every week no matter how much his enthusiasm to do so.
I think that many fans don't realise the physical pounding that a forward in the top echelon of Super League takes every match.

Rest after a few games(3/4?)? Come on. That's ridiculous.
Youngsters have proven time after time that they dont need to be 'eased' into the action. Fair enough if he'd played 3 months non stop but a 4 games, come on.

I think you are missing the point I made about age/position.
Sure there are 18 year olds playing in SL in the backs, and we've seen Props of a young age playing 2 short spells, but back row is quite different - they play most of the game and at the coal face.
How many other 18 year olds are regularly playing second row every match for a SL team ?

Looks like Elima is not ready for next week

Maybe Elima should have a run out in the 20's this week following such a lengthy lay off? then play the week after against Saints at home.

Bateman onto bench for joseph scrutes for joseph..has burgess done anything this year to command a spot??? If crowe comes in for him i`d take the compo.

Burgess played 8 mins last night and with interchanges numbers reduced it seems a bit of a waste of a spot if he gets such limited gametime

I know he played 80 mins on Thursday but you cant blame the circumstances with Mrs Scrutons pending due date. As I understand she was due around now so we should have planned better. If Tom was to play in 20's on Thurs but would be required to step up if Scrutes got called away, which was a fair chance given due dates etc, this should have been planned better. If Potter only thinks/plans on using him for 8 mins per game seems equally as strange

Think Burgess will pretty soon reconsider his decision not to go to Australia with the limited game time he is getting

Not really justifying his spot at themoment. Before tonight he's had resonable game time. Although the decision to play him on Thursday is stupid. You name a 19 man suqad incase you get injuries, so why play some of them in a game on Thursday!!!!!

In retrospect this could have been handled differently and better

Given that the baby was due this weekend, would it have been better to give Scruton a full 80 minutes in the U20s to have a full hit out and get to regain some match sharpness that he's obviously lacking. Obviously if she'd gone into labour it wouldn't have mattered if he'd have skipped the U20s game.

Then keep Burgess fresh for the Wire game, when he could have done a longer stint.

But hindsight is a wonderful thing

Back row of Elima, Whitehead and Bateman. Get Langley bumped up to the front row where he should have been for a couple of years now. Let's have a loose man with some handling, something we haven't had since Mike Forshaw.

What he said. Again.

Realistically, don't think Potters going to shift Langley to front row.


Koppy
Disko
Hargreaves
Elima
Bateman
Langley

Heath
Whitehead
Scruton
Manase

Swap John and Langley for me. Although Bateman has been outstanding where he is too, as has Langley.

I'd rather see John at 13 aswell, but I put what I think Potter is more likely to do. So far he's seemed to preferred our 13 to be like an extra prop, with Hargreaves and Koppy occasionally playing there too.

Wherever he gets put, Bateman has to be on the pitch atm, even if it forces Whitehead or Elima to the bench.

I have a lot of qualms about Langley moving to the front row, not least because (as last night showed) his monstrous work-rate in the second row is so invaluable to us (I really cannot believe that some posters think we're better off without him or that he 'only ever comes into a tackle as third man'!).

However, if he could do it and make a success of it, it would help to address a potential time bomb for us - the fact that we only have 2 contracted props (Kopczak and Scruton) for next season. Given that good props are rare and unlikely to be free agents, and that we have limited room for manoeuvre with overseas places, the pack may be in for an even tougher time next season!

I'm sure the club won't allow a potentially disastrous situation to creep up on them...

Im hoping somebody from down under comes in for Kearney, he wants to go home and we get to sign Sammut and Manese.