I agree. Had you won yesterday I would have had no complaints.
I'd suggest that it was indeed our strength in depth that pulled us through, remember we had a number of first team players absent too.
I can't help thinking that by requesting a postponement you are almost giving the players available the message that you have no confidence in them, when it would be better to praise their effort at the weekend and get them playing to prove a point?

You had 14 missing too then did you? If we'd had a max of 8 out (inc one we'd just signed and who'd never played for us) then we wouldn't have been moaning cos that happens

I personally hope that either the R.F.L. agrees to Salford’s request or a rag-tag seventeen actually beats Hull.

Either way it will give me hours of amusement.

The V.T would go into meltdown if it was the former, or the Hull board would implode with various suggestions of how to put to death the men in charge, if the latter occurred .

No. However, this was in no small part to having no players suspended as opposed to your 4 which didn't help matters.
Therefore, through injury you were missing a further 8 (14 is the number of players you now have unavailable - it was 12 yesterday!).
We were missing Dorn, Carney, Webster, Solomona, Cook, McMeekan and Mariano through injury. At the start of the game this was one less player missing through injury than yourselves.

there is a third scenario. Hull FC stick a cricket score on Salford....twitter will be the place to be then!



He is displaying a sense of humour though....

@drmarwanK 6 hrs ago
Whilst we are at it, will ask the RFL to reschedule our magic weekend fixture against @WidnesRL as it clashes with racing at @ChesterRaces

Junior development is the answer for all Super League clubs.
Today's pain is tomorrows gain.

Don't talk daft.
Increased salary caps, marquee allowances and more foreigners....that's the Superleague way!

I don't get the outrage. They're in a bad position, have asked if the game could be rescehduled and told no. How exactly does this somehow constitute a joke? At least in effect they are telling fans who might attend to expect a hugely one-sided game. That's more than the management of some teams have done in the past when fielding ridiculously weak teams on purpose.

the way Hull have played this year, it'll probably be quite even





P.S. I'm aware they beat us!

I would only bet on a draw, if Salford didn't turn up

I don't know where people are getting the numbers of 14 and 16 players missing from. Having gone through the squad list on the Super League website, I have totalled up the amount of unavailable players.

1. Locke - injured
2. BJB - injured
3. J Griffin - injured
4. Sa'u - injured
5. Chase - suspended
6. Dobson - injured
7. Morley - injured
8. Lee - injured
10. Taylor - injured
11. Hauraki - suspended
12. J Walne - injured
13. A Walne - injured
14. Puletua - de-registered for quota reasons
15. Walton - injured
16. Hood - injured
17. Menzies - injured
18. Ford - out on loan, unavailable for recall
19. England - out on loan, unavailable for recall
20. Paterson - suspended

That is 3 suspended (not 4 as has been suggested), 2 out on loan, 1 de-registered and 14 injured. If we were to go further, Josh Wood, the only u19s player who would be physically and mentally ready for the speed and toughness of playing Super League is also injured. The rest of our U19s as has been mentioned are 16 or 17 years old. Add to that we can't register Ian Watson, as his annual coaching salary would also be transferred over to the salary cap. Yes the suspensions are our own fault, but even without them we'd be struggling. People say we don't have depth in our squad, but most teams would struggle with 20 players unavailable.

Also missed out Godwin - injured, so make that 21 players unavailable

Its a joke that Salford had the neck to request a re schedule/postponement and not only that played the process out in public.

Why didn't they test the water CEO-CEO(or similar) quietly maybe with one RFL representative involved.

Answer No then get on with it without anyone knowing,
Answer yes make a formal statement.

Isn't that how businesses work??

Loaned player and players whom your refusing to pay don't count on the list - that boils down to massive mismanagement - I have enough trouble having sympathy with 3 banned let alone others - massive grab at straws there! 16 missing is terrible, and on the higher end, but as others have said, numerous clubs have seen around 13 injured before so it's not unprecedented

Amatuer clubs forfeit the game if they can't raise a team. Play or forfeit are the only options here ...

Its a horrible injury list, but 6 players are not playing due to the club loaning them or on suspension

When the whole squad is 27 players it not exactly much room

Id prefer some clubs to loan some players if they are willing as simply suspending fixtures until later is not practical and would be open to abuse in the future (not saying this is the case here)

Precisely. I like the Doc and I know he has a fan club on here but as has been the case many times before, he would have been better off doing it privately, then telling the fans the situation.

Yes, Hull/RFL have agreed - great, no need for a media circus, a big thankyou to Hull and the RFL, we will work on getting bodies back on the pitch.

No, Hull/RFL have refused the request - if the Doc insisted on making it public then he could have said it was worth a try, we will try to put out a team to make the club proud (i.e. siege mentality).

Unfortunately as always it's extra column inches for the Doc.

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... an-9133890 The guy is a joke.

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... an-9133890 The guy is a joke.

Very embarrassing for a club, whose coach is pushing for a Marque player, yet unable to put together a team!!

If MarwanK gets his way, Salford would be able field 12 under 19's and Greg Inglis!

I recall Leeds had the option to not play a game against Cas due to International Duty, but chose to go ahead with the kids, and still win!

Iestyn needs to get his boots on!

The game should go ahead even if Salford don't/can't field 13 players.
There isn't a pre-requisite to field 13 players, there is no rule that states you must take to the field with that number & that isn't a reason to postpone a game, the sports own rules make that clear.
So IF they don't have any interchange, hard lines, if you turn up with 10 players, that's a tough day at the office, BUT there is nothing in the rules to say the game has to be postponed because you can't field a full strength side.

In fact if taking into account the laws which say that a game can still go continue even if one team has only 5 players (& not be abandoned) then only having 12 players to take to the field at kick-off is not a reason to postpone. It's that simple really, anything else is against the sports own rules.
Postponement due to fog, stadium safety, no doctor, safety of players from fans, unplayable pitch, yep all good reasons, not enough players to make up the 17, nope.

Couldn’t Salford tempt Martin Gleeson out of retirement, I’m sure he’d make one in, after he’s nipped to the bookies.

Ignoring the rest of his ramblings....He keeps referring to having to double up as the water carrier. Serious question, surely one of the 100-150 Salford fans going to the game on Friday would be willing to help the team out by being the water carrier for the night?!

Might have a cheeky fiver on a Salford win

Show's the need for a reserve grade. But clubs would rather chuck 500k at a nrl "star" than build a decent infrastructure to bring through more English players.

It's obvious that the Doc is trying to fire up the old 'us against them, everybody hates us' siege mentality in the Salford fans. It would probably be quite successful if his article didn't read like a drunken senile fans facebook rant.

Watch out for flying toys around the Trafford Centre area