having witnessd the london game first hand, can i just ask fellow supporters, why do we have a squad of 25-30 players?? its clearly evident to me, that no matter who gets injured etc, then we never use our squad.. take saturday for example, surely brisoce would be better staying on the wing rather than using him as full back, his performance was woeful if im honest..... why dont we use the reserve full back??, ie: shaul i think the lads name is?? whats the point in having players such as nicklas, kent,shaul, cunningham rotting around when gentle has no intention of playing them???
for me, if a certain player is injured then surely it would be better to deploy a like for like replacement player to fill the void,
so, as for satuday, we had a winger as a full back, a hooker as a half-back, and whiting playing wherever needed as usual.... when we should have had, nicklas in place of holdsworth ,shaul in place of mcdonnell for a start.. and then we can play 2 hookers to give the knackerd but outstanding houghton a break.......
utter caos at the minute under gentle

I see little different to when Fubar was here, and that is depressing!

I believe you can gauge a lot more about a coach by his reaction to adversity and pressure, rather than when things are going well. Gentle appears to be floundering at the moment which I didn’t expect, it’s very disappointing.

Not sure how Shaul is going for York but he looked very impressive in the pre-season friendly against Cas.

Would like to see him given a chance when Shannon is out.

Resorting to the safe option is always the sign of someone under pressure. Very difficult skill to be able to say I will stick with playing people in their correct positions and play a rookie in a key position. I do agree that however little experience the replacement has it is a better option than what you lose moving people around the team. As was stated by the club at the beginning of last season there is meant to be uniformity between the different grades at the club so the step up shouldn't come with a lack of knowledge of the playing structures.

Just to add - if they're good enough to get a first team squad number, they're good enough to play in the first team. And without being totally disrespectful, Saturday was a game where we could have blooded some of the younger players.

It's a gamble that often only coaches of top sides (with top youngsters) are willing to take. If Gentle had put Shaul in and then he had a bad game he would no doubt have been taken out for the derby whether or not McDonnell was fit, this would have shattered his confidence and got the crowd on his back for future appearances.
Alternatively I recall Finch once getting an injury at Craven Park and McGuire throwing on a youngster by the name of Tomkins so I suppose it can work out okay sometimes.

Good post and i found it bemusing as well especially after last season when we blooded Lineham,Crooks,Nicklas,Bowden,Green and Kent.He wasnt afraid to use them then...whats different now.

It was Tim Smith that got injured and Brian Noble that put him on.

Point still stands though, and Shaul and Nicklas should have played at the weekend.

Whilst it is right to bring in young players, you have to be careful that you don’t harm their personal development.
It is much easier to bring them in when you have an established team an style of play, like Wigan, Warrington, Saints and Leeds, but right now we don’t yet have that luxury

Good post. I think Shaul on balance should have played although it was nightmare conditions for a young full back to make his SL debut in. Others calling for Nicklas must have forgotten how poor his previous attempts have been.

Niklas is gash and may well be on his way out due to Twittergate. Not so surprising he didn't play.

Saul is less straightforward. Unless Shannon not playing was a very late decision it's difficult to see why he wasn't given a crack.

There could be valid reasons as a one-off. If it develops into a pattern over time then it will be a cause for concern. Given that we played a lot of youngsters last season I'm hopeful that we haven't changed that policy.

Crikey, that was a while ago then!

Have to say I didnt travel to London but am bemused at Gentles decision to play Briscoe at Fullback when he was an absolute disaster last time this was tried.

If Gentle wasn't prepared to play Shaul or didnt think he was ready in those conditions then why did he not just play Whiting at FB who is solid and reliable and has covered that position well for us on numerous occasions.

Nicklas should also have been utilised as thats why he is in the squad of players to cover when others are injured so Gentle doesnt have to in his own words 'use square pegs in round holes' particlularly when both Seymour & Holdsworth are unavailable.

I must admit I am wondering now if we really have moved forward under Gentle or whether the team has actually flattered to decieve as some of the comments coming from the head coach are very similar to our ex coach such the one in particular that is grating is 'we are going well in training but not putting in what we do at training on game day'.

I know we yet again have injuries but even so we look a miles off the pace most of the time and just dont seem to be able to find any sort of form.

Whiting should have played FB as others have said.

PG is under a lot of pressure (rightfully) so he was never going to play Jamie Shaul or Danny Nicklas against london, though I agree they should have played but so should have Green and seeing him dropped whilst the likes of Galea play sums this coach up for me.

Are people [ireally[/i forgetting just how gash Niklas has been virtually every single time he's been tried?

And that's without even considering the calls for him to be disciplined/sacked following his Twitter shenanigans.

Think in this case we are being a little unfair.

In a year and a bit, Gentle has brought through Crooks, Green, Lineham and Bowden into first team players. All have played multiple games, not just 10 mins at the end of the odd game. This is clearly different to Agar when in his final year not a single young player got a debut in Super League, not even for 10 minutes!

He had 3 good wingers and no full back who has played first team, it doesn't look brilliant with hindsight but could have been a reasonable idea at the time. Briscoe actually looked promising at full back in one game (Catalans?) last year and then appalling at Widnes - along with the rest of the team.

Nicklas is not good enough, the suprising thing is we extended his contract.

We thought we'd cover our @rses just in case our 6 & 7 weren't able to make it onto the park................................................................................................................................................................

Been approached by countless SL clubs whilst out at York apparently.



I agree with others it is surprising why we would keep this type of player on our books. Maybe it's in the hope they will develop late or something.

cant argue with that

Apart from Shaul, Gentle has used a youngster at times, may be just a case of not having too many in together, our backline is hardly an old experienced one.

Personally i would have put Jason Crookes there, im sure hes covered that position before


As for Shaul, although hes got a squad number he may not be registered in the first team squad, so could be a case that it was too late to get the paperwork in, or even may effect salary cap etc

No but then why resign him if we have no intention of playing him when he was resigned for precisely this scenario to fill the void should we lose one or more of Horne, Holdsworth & Seymour.

Just in case Azza, Westy and Stilts also get injured.

Maybe they thought they'd give Nicklas one last chance to progress, but he hasn't.

Maybe his attitude hasn't been good enough.

Shaul has only been full time a few months, maybe they thought he wasn't ready, not least in awful conditions in a struggling side with outside backs already lacking experience.