Our entire attacking game is based around the second phase play. Richards at fullback takes that out of our game and against a good defence it costs us games.

I think firstly we should be looking at the fact we made poor metres in the forwards battle for 70 minutes tonight, we really did struggle to break out of our forty due to Leeds line speed and stopping us dead. Neither Murphy / Hampshire would have altered that.

I can understand Wane's thoughts on Richards at FB tonight as the alternative would have been peppered all night with bombs. Instead Sinfield know's Richards will field those all day long and arched them to Ryan Hall instead.

Let's face it, tonight was a good effort but could have really been on the back of a hammering due to the amount of possession against us (Ryan Hall should have had a hat-trick in the first half but for sloppy last passes).

Then we need a plan B for when Sam is injured given, as I understand it, Hampshire just doesn't play FB and Sinfield would have thought it was Christmas if Murphy had been able to be recalled from loan.

In fact we need to vary things more than we do anyway IMO. We need the half backs particularly Smith to take the line on more themsleves so we offer a more varied threat than we do. It's a bit too predictable when Sam does play and trying to play the same way when he doesn't isn't going to work.

Given the alternatives Richards was the correct choice. That wasn't the problem. The tactics were.

Spot on. The forwards did a pretty good job defensively, but as you say they weren't making the hard yards, and we were too often kicking from inside our own half.

His change of pace these days is ridiculously slow. Never beat the first man last night on any occasion. The attempted tackle for the first Leeds try was embarrassing aswell.

Ask on the Salford board what they think of Murphy. He's been shoved out onto the wing for them and last night against Warrington he was by some distance the worse performer on the pitch.

Richards would seem the only relaistic option to fill in at full-back if Tomkins is missing.

I think it's safe to say without Sam playing and now Hock's gone, any creativity and attacking threat is long gone. Too predictable, how many times did Leeds close down the 'second phase play' because it's clear they trained to do that all week, because sadly that's all we have to offer in attack

I think he hurt himself tackling Watkins early on. After the first try he received all manner of strapping while the kick was being taken.
He then was clearly unable to run it in for a good 15 minutes or so. There was one point where he could have made the break down our right but just gave it to Goulding because he didn't have it in him.
He's solid as anything though, certainly compared to someone like Murphy so at present, I'd have him there if Sam isn't available for a big game.

Don't get this at all.
Richards wasn't kicking goals no doubt due to a fitness problem of some kind.
Anyone at fb who's not fully fit isn't going to come into the attacking line at full pace. Pat nullified Sinfield's kicking so much so he then went after Charnley where he found more success.

pat was by far the 1st choice fullback last night due to sinfields kicking threat.pat maybe old school but solid as a rock.

Richards is solid at FB. Ok not as fast or dynamic in attack as Sam but far better under the high ball and defensively

Leeds would have bombed Sam all day long and come out with something from it, so Pat at fullback completely took that attacking option away, although they did target Josh

Pat to me had a groin injury picked up around 5 minutes into the game yesterday as he was walking around holding the groin area and obviously wasnt kicking later in the game

it may have been a better attacking option to have Josh play FB, and nullified the attacking kicks to his wing, but thats only in hindsight

It was reported on Sky that Richards had a groin strain, hence no goal kicking.
Why did he play, out of position, if he wasn't fit??

Richards was a poor choice at FB, doesn't link up in the line on the second phase, we only ever really play out the back door rugby under Wane, so having no one out the back door was hard to understand.

Charnley should have played there with Richards on the wing.

But Charnley played fullback against Huddersfield and had the exact same problem. He didn't link with the attacking line well and didn't really know what was expected of him. We just ended up with a flat attacking line rather than having the fullback dropping deep and causing uncertainty. Richards was slightly better because at least he understood the role and his positioning wasn't bad.

Neither are great options as modern fullbacks but unfortunately Murphy is showing at Salford that he isn't good enough and Tierney probably isn't considered to be ready for the step up yet. I do think the club should consider sending Tierney to South Wales to see how he copes playing against men rather than boys as I think we're really lacking at fullback when Sam is out.

You cant have gone to the Huddersfield away match then because Charnley was far worse than Richards in that regard. Based on his performance in that game I would never pick Charnley at full back again as his reluctance/inability to pass cost us the game with overlap after overlap being squandered.

Wasn't the hudds game when Gelling was injured so Wane switched Powell was moved to FB to cover and Charnley back to the wing? The who wing/fb positions were constantly interchanged to cover the injury, hardly a good opportunity for Charnley to shine as a fb.

I also remember when Sam went off injured v Cats last season, Charnley was moved to FB, was excellent under the high ball, linked up well in attack and scored a length of the field amazing try from fb.

On top of all that I don't expect a player to instantly be a hit at fb.

Charnley had plenty of time at fullback against Huddersfield. Powell was moved there when Gelling got injured until the end of the first half and Charnley played the rest.

Against Catalans I don't think Charnley linked up well in attack at all, he barely got any opportunity to join the attacking line and when he did he didn't do much at all - the only notable thing he did was score that impressive try. It was a bit of individual brilliance but not something that is going to happen often so not enough reason to stick him at fullback. The defending was very, very weak and a broken field opportunity like that won't come around again for a while.

It might be that Charnley could develop into a decent fullback in time but that's not what we're after. We need someone who can slot into fullback and do well. For Charnley to get used to the role he'll have to play there regularly and there's just no time for that.

I thought when we originally announced Pat at fullback that he would cover in defence and Charnley would takeover in attack. Could have been a good plan B in the second half to change things around.

Against Huddersfield Charnley was full back for the vast majority of the game and he stifled our attack that much that Wane shifted him back to the wing and put Richards at full back for the last few mins. The inability of Charnley to even make simple passes when there was clear overlaps was the main reason we lost that game imo. Wane obviously felt it was better not to put Charnley there again after that performance and just put Richards there from the start against Leeds.

Good to see we are keeping up the tradition of nonsensical remarks.
The game was lost at the 5th tackle. For some reason in the 1st half smith repeatedly tried the cross field wonder kick to Charnley (vs Hall??) Charnely couldnt outleap Burrows at the end of the match what chance did he have against Hall? Didnt SW instruct the halfbacks not to leave a Hall v Charnley? This was total lunacy. Now a kick aimed at Watkins with Richards running through the centre would have been ideal. Watkins looked good in attack but he's no defender. At the least we may have an a shout for obstruction on Richards - which is what Sinfield is great at getting away with. Just my thoughts, yes Charnley did have a shocker but leaving him one on one with Hall was a pathetic tactic

I wouldn't expect Charnley to be a world beater at fb right off the bat, this ironically reminds me of similar responses when I suggested playing Sam as a fb....

Pat Richards is a safe pair of hands at full-back and I have no issue with him playing in that position when Sam is injured (unless there is a better candidate? I can't think of one).

The best teams can adjust to players being injured and that is usually what a champion team is able to do.

I don't want to be too negative about the Leeds performance because with injuries we came very close to pinching a win but tactically I think we need to be much smarter than we are currently and that was our downfall last season in the play-off defeat against Leeds.

Looking at our team we have the players to be able to adjust tactically to the way we play the game, an over reliance on one style of play will quickly make us predictable and we will be punished against the top sides.

I thought Vickery looked a weak link in the Leeds game but not convinced he was really tested enough.

This will decide whether Wane can cut it as a SL coach imo.

There is no doubting his relationships with the players are great and they all want to play for him. That gets a tick in the box.

However, there is a massive question over his intellectual ability to coach imo. Passion is a good thing but it needs to be combined with intelligence.

Do we have a "Plan B" when "pass it to Sam" isn't an option?

The next couple of months will tell us I guess.

True.

I think that in some ways the amount of injuries we have at present as perhaps taken some of the pressure off Wigan but we must learn from the mistakes of last season when we were dumped out of both competitions because we were not smart enough.

The truth is that although we did nearly pinch a win against Leeds they could of put many more points past us had they themselves not turned the ball over as much. Having said this the warning signs where evident against Castleford when I felt we were very lucky to get away with a win in the end.

The Easter period should be interesting.

I wonder though if the point being missed here is that Sam got injured late in the week so putting someone at FB was a late decision - so it would either be Pat or Josh (bringing back Murphy at such a late stage would not have made sense if it were possible).

I think the decision was the correct one - with a very good kicker like Sinfield on the opposite side then Pat is the better defender of kicks etc.

Either way it is history for now.