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.

Quote ="cas all the way"icon_lol.gif show me the proof? You guys were caught red handed.'" This article pretty much sums it up. You cheated to gain promotion in 2005 so whether or not we overspent in 06 should have had no relevance to you whatsoever as you should still have been in the division below. https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2006/ ... ague.sport

Quote ="cas all the way"icon_lol.gif show me the proof? You guys were caught red handed.'" This article pretty much sums it up. You cheated to gain promotion in 2005 so whether or not we overspent in 06 should have had no relevance to you whatsoever as you should still have been in the division below. https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2006/ ... ague.sport

Not to mention that we weren't actually charged with breaching the salary cap, but the spirit of the salary cap because we found a loophole that was perfectly legal.

Stop letting facts get in the way of some more Wigan bashing ha ha ha

Sorry

Exactly NK. The point regarding the playoffs is of particular interest as Lam has insisted that he would have done things differently had he knew he had more than one year at the start of last season and that they had addressed that this time around. I assumed that the way our forwards went about their business was one of those things as it has clearly become past it's sell by.

I don't want this to come across as Lam bashing though. It's really just about this one selection which I feel he has got wrong. I do, however, take on board the point about turning up late for training though, if that is true.

On that point, it would be really disappointing of Bullock were that the cause. It's not as though it's difficult to turn up on time. If he's a poor timekeeper just aim to arrive an hour earlier. It's not exactly rocket science, is it? It would be such a shame if he hamstrung his own career for such a trivial reason. I shudder to think just how stupid you'd have to be to allow that to happen.

As someone who's always had difficulty raising my head from the pillow in the morning, I have some sympathy!

Hardaker just referred to Bullock as ‘Mr Always late’ on a social media post. Either he’s being wound up over the rumour of his time keeping which is going about or it seems to have legs.

If it’s true and it’s hindering his chances of getting picked then Bullock really needs to have a word with himself. It’s a pitiful way of risking career progression.

If Bullock's always late then it's up to Lam to get it sorted. He's the coach so man manage!
Anyone who's been in management has had someone who's always late. You just have to handle it right and make sure that the individual still is able gives their very best to the job.
If Lam has a problem with Bullock over time keeping then Lam should get it sorted without it impacting on the team's performance.
If Lam is preventing Bullock from doing the job he can do then that is just not good enough.
IL/Rads need to have a word with Lam and tell him to get it sorted, and quick!

Morning? People get up in the morning? That's news to me!