just come on to say the same its baffling, if Lam thinks Clark is better than Bullock then hes clueless

Good to see we have 2020 scapegoat sorted
Step up Mitch Clark!

People want to se Bullock play (and yes I would play him) and because he isn't we go around criticising a player that's not even played a competitive match.

I was there Saturday, for the first 15/20 I thought Clarke played well, made metres after contact on 4 of his first 5 drives and it was probably around the 15/20 min mark then Bullock came to the fore.
Bullock was the better of the 2 from then on in IMO but Clarke improved in the last 10/25 of his 2nd spell.

I'm with Jonh
For whatever reason Lam isnt picking Bullock and I'm sure that it isnt personal (so to speak) and a reflection of one or multiple facets of his training, attitude,game.

Either way we shouldn't be bagging Clarke for whatever Lams concerns over Bullock are.

I'm BFUT'S biggest critic (Ten minute Tony) but have to trust that if Lam thinks hes a better all round option than Bullock then so be it.

Were not going to get big minutes out of Clubb and I assume Clarke which leave a lot of weight on the young lads shoulders. Lam and the coaching team thinks there up to it or he doesn't think Bullock is.

I get that jonh but it’s evident to everyone and Stevie Wonder that Clubb is useless, Clark is ineffective and G Burgess is unfit through injury. It’s equally evident that Bullock has been superb in pre season and been far and away the most effective prop we have. So to play all the aforementioned before him at this moment in time is utterly bemusing.

I’m not looking to scapegoat Clark or any other player, nor am I wishing to sound like I’m writing him off - I’m not, but in our pre season games Bullock earned his selection over Clark/Clubb. I get we’re not privy to training and what goes on behind the scenes but that IMO doesn’t warrant this selection.

I don’t buy into the “point to prove” comment either. That’s very Navarette-ish v Catalans. It’s irrelevant and unhelpful. The best players should be picked to do the job and I’m not confident that they have been this week.

Given Cas’ injuries I would expect a win but we have to be far better than we were v Wire to come away with 2pts, even with Cas’ weakened side.

Just on the Zak note; for me I’d play French and Hastings in the halves and Zak at FB. I think French and Hastings showed glimpses v Warrington that they are going to have a very lucrative partnership.

And Clarke being an ineffective prio whilst Bullock is a proven effective prop is measured how?
I presume that's just an opinion?
I would say Bullock didn't prove too much last year mainly due to injuries? I do remember is carry was good but equally his defence was poor.
Clarke ob the other hand is neutral for me, we see how he goes Friday and see how he proves his effectiveness based in his contribution

French plays FB for me
Hardaker will know what the likely scenarios were 6 months ago. I'd hazard a guess when options were being tried out last and pre season that this combination proved the best.
I soyld say so far I'd agree
French ar FB looks far more a threatening option than Zak and I thought Zak was very good at centre last week
No need to change it IMO

We have done without pretty much a starting 13 for the last 2 seasons. Don't think too many Cas fans bothered too much last season when we went there with half a team. I think the 'we have some players missing' argument only applies if your name isn't Wigan Warriors. We just roll our sleeves up and get on with it

Was it Hull we played when the commentators constantly spoke of the players they were missing, like CONSTANTLY while we had about 8 out that never got mentioned.

Absolutely right. I’ve been vocal in criticising the lack of games for Bullock but there’s no way people should then be criticising Clark for getting picked ahead of him this week. The criticism Clark has had since a reasonably quiet debut against Leeds has been startling, even for a new Wigan player. The comment I mentioned on here yesterday after the Leeds friendly will live long in the memory, it read ‘Clark can go for me’.

Bonkers!

I'd have both Clark and Bullock in the team but then I'm a bit old fashioned, I like to see my props taking the opposition with them, not hitting the deck as soon as contact is made.

It occasionally calls for that if you attract four or five defenders and get a quick PTB

Pre season. Bullock outshone Clark in every way. I’m not against Clark but what I am against is players who evidently deserve to be in first and to be brutally honest I feel our pack is weaker when it should have been stronger.

As always, quite happy to sit here on Saturday morning and rescind any remarks should I be proved wrong.

Sometimes there’s a tactical need for that; quick PTB, markers all over the place and defensive line not set. It opens up spaces for and players to exploit.

Equally there’s a tactical need for the old fashioned approach (and FWIW as a retired battered prop forward, I very much prefer seeing the props run in in as hard as possible skittling defenders); make ground up the field, good kick pin the attack in their 30mtrs, hurt them and knock the enthusiasm out of them.

Thompson, Lees, LMS and Walmsley were very effective at switching between the 2 last season and a huge reason why Saints were as successful as they were.

Or break salary cap so you don't go down

Well obviously. The RFL do as we say. Did you not know that. That's why we have no suspensions. The Cas forum has been in fine fettle this week. Two pealing threads going on at the minute.

'"

:32a65fty
Or break salary cap so you don't go down

'"

I think we need the team to have played 4-5 games before we can start questioning team selections. With the exception of George Burgess in the 21 man squad, even more so if he gets in the 17 which I don't think he will.

Despite Cas injuries its never easy over there and looking forward to a tasty battle.

Just to clarify my post, I'm not criticising Clark's inclusion. I actually thought he played well in the reserves without doing anything eye-catching. As a workhorse prop he actually looked like the prop Clubb should be. I'm only critical of his inclusion in preference to Bullock who did everything Clark did and more besides and also outshone him in the Leeds friendly. There is nothing on the face of it to suggest Clark played himself into contention over Bullock who seems the more natural metre maker and has the more natural offloading game, both being things we could currently use, especially if we're to play the brand of rugby Lam has continually promised. Whatever the reasons (and I'm sure he must have them) it looks from the outside that Lam is shooting himself in the foot. Obviously that is not allowing for anything we don't know about.

For my own part I'd like to have seen Bullock in for Burgess and Clark in for Clubb. That said, I'd be more than happy to be proven wrong and that Clubb raises his game in the manner he (all too) occasionally does.

show me the proof? You guys were caught red handed.

My gripe with Bullocks omission from purely a playing perspective is down to two things really-

1-He outplayed all our props in his two pre season games (not just Clark and Clubb)

2-The side is crying out for a prop who chews up the metres. Saints start with two and we don’t have any in the current side. I’d have thought Saints and Salford in the play offs would’ve changed the safety first approach to our forward selections.

It has to be off the field issues with Bullock because nothing else makes sense.

Yeah but that doesn’t matter because its not Wigan. They also would have stayed up if they had beat Wakefield but they didn’t. In all honesty its best thing that happened with Cas as they came back better and are now as strong as ever. Which is great for the game.

George Burgess is selected in spite of not being fit and got a obvious injury while Bullock who has had two good games in the Testimonial and Reserve games is dropped from the first team squad.

Unless he got a injury in training, the lad must be gutted!

To be fair though with the Bullock situation. If he keeps being late for training (as suggested, i don't know for a fact) then i think it's right. It sets a precedent within the squad. Shaun Wane was a big advocate of punishing players who were late for training and he had the respect of everybody. I think it's a good thing, and good for Lam for showing he is no pushover.

Lam must have his reasons, but they'd better be good ones

Because we got whacked in the forwards by Warrington, and if we get whacked again by Cas - and this time don't have the advantage of opposition indiscipline to see us through - the question will be asked.

These are the kinds of decisions that coaches live and die by, and as far as I'm aware, Lam only has one year left on his contract.