Liam Farrell was not playing in their 17 today.After the challenge cup game i think he will be back.Could of done with liam yesterday seen as he did not play.If we get the Danny Heckingburgh from london,ford,allen and webster back, i will feel confident again.

Talking of over-reactions from yours truly, but in response to the Leyther, I've been a bit sceptical of O'Connor's role and his effectiveness in it for a while now..

Widnes for Sl lol

Is that an ironic laugh? Well, it's your team they'll be replacing.

Personally i'm looking forward to going to watch Fax at Salford in 2012. I don't care what anyone says, The Willows is a lovely little stadium.

Look forward to it

Yes i have ive been every home game apart from fax and i watched that on the tv so i know what im talking about.

Hi all, I'm new to the forum scene, and let me firstly say that I am a Widnes fan and am not a troll!

Ok, that out of the way, here's my opinion on the current subject.

The defensive performance was inept, and hasn't improved from early in the season. I'm assuming that Cullen knows a thing or two about coaching, and would have highlighted defence as an area of improvement.

My issue is simple. How can he suggest that the club are down to the bare bones? I think he has a cheek to use this as an excuse. Widnes Vikings have =#0000003 teams. Approximately 70 players i'd guess. Sure, the majority aren't ready for 1st team action and true, the reserves and kids havent played yet or are in early season, but its not as if there is a player shortage.

I'm referring to the problems that other clubs are currently going through, which puts things into perspective. London Skolars were down to their last 17 at the weekend. Rochdale Hornets were down to the last 17 this weekend. This is to name just two. These are teams with genuine injury problems who DO NOT have any other teams to use players.

There has been no denying the poor defence from the coaching staff which is fair enough, but dont blame it on 'not having our strongest team available'. How often does a team have the strongest team available with everybody fit?

Deal with the problem. Simple as that.

Hi and welcome to the forum. Two posts on this forum and already I'm picking up an anti-Cullen vibe from you peterw...



Whose to say that he isn't working on that at the moment. Saturday night's defeat seemed to be down to a mixture of individual errors and a very good game from some Toulouse players. Cut out the silly errors and the score would have been more respectable. Personally I think it's incredible how so many people have completely disregarded how well Toulouse played for 60 mins. I think it might have something to do with previous scores against them but the performance on Saturday night suggested they are far better than some of those.

Seems you answered your own question there!!

That's all very well but from a chosen first team squad, i.e. those players singled out as good enough to play rugby at this level, at one time we had ten players out injured and others currently playing with injuries and knocks. We might have 70 players or so on the books but which of those are good enough to play against the likes of Whitehaven or Toulouse.

I don't recall one person blaming injuries for the poor defensive effort. Injuries happen, fair enough, but how often would you expect two season ending injuries to two of your props. How many sides would realistically expect to lose more than a third of their squad for more than two or three games? Against Dewsbury we played the vast majority of the game with only two players available on the bench.. not a bad result considering.

I'm always very sceptical of anyone who introduces themselves with the phrase "I am not a troll". Judging by your first few posts, you've already started with the controversial postings, and don't think you wont be found out if you are a troll.

I am not a troll. I am a number.

You are not a number, you are a member

!

P.S. peterw, welcome to the forum - you have been warned.

Oh and you'll like littlerich (littlebitch/dick) everyone likes him on here cos he's a Viking - simple as

.

Well, that's a big fat lie.

Actually what i will admit to is that once you are in Super League i will be free to offer my support - there'll be no conflict of interest with my sacred Halifax RLFC. There'll be tears in my eyes at your first game. It'll be like sending my kid off on his first day at school. Just don't let Warrington shove your head down the bog.

Dismantled your opening line with your second there rich.

As for your finishing sentence, their heads are so far down the shared Widnes - Wire bog that it'll take them as long as it took Fax to build their new stand to even poke their breathing pipe through the surface

.

A few things to straighten out I think.



1. I'm not anti cullen in any way.
2. I like to think I am a realist and speak my mind and more often than not, the truth.
3. I don't like the idea of saying that we only have 17 fit players when clearly we have more. Whether they are capable of playing first team is a different issue entirely.

I'd say that from the '17 fit players' there were more than a couple who arent good enough to play first team anyway. Does this mean Cullen should declare that we only have 14/15 first team players available?

The point that I am making is that we are a professional club with a seriously large group of players (all levels) and there are teams in a f worse position than us.

London Skolars as it says in the papers today had 17 available players. Thats 17 players only!

They are in a worse position than us.

In terms of teams that have missed two front rowers for large parts of the season and still competed, I remember the st helens team of around 2003??? I may be wrong on the year, but they lost 3 or 4 front rowers if i remember correctly. The only thing that brings this to mind is that they recruited Heath Cruickshank, Paul Southern and another second rate player on short term loans to fill the void.
My Granddad is a BIG saints fan. (thanks for the info granddad)

Fingerposts Finest had strong St Helens links. Take off that mask !!!!

You velly wise rittlelich!!

Nail Head hit

No conspiracy theory or hidden agendas here unfortunately redchemic and littlerich.

Fair enough peter, although your anti Cullen agenda is less than well hidden

.

I honestly dont have an antil cullen agenda. TOC, thats a different issue though!

Joke before you lot start

Our squad was somewhat weakened anyway by trying to blood as many youngsters as we are in the first team squad. It only takes the loss of a few experienced first team players and we would already be struggling against most teams - most of which will be able to compete easier on the lower £300,000 cap. If we’d assembled a strong, experienced squad like Halifax Fev and Barrow, and still had our academies in place, then you may have had a point – all be it a very shaky one imo. Several players are also playing with injuries. We probably don’t even have the luxury of a fully fit 17 man team as a result!

As it is, we now find ourselves struggling with ten injuries and three missing dual-contract players. Despite this, we have done well imo, to get the wins we have. We’ve used 27 players already, and we’ve only played 6 rounds. I’d be surprised if we didn’t look disjointed. We just haven’t had a settled side.


This is most certainly the reason for our struggling displays recently. Cullen also hasn’t actually been able to field his best 17 all season so far.

Lot’s of injuries affects sides. Both Rochdale and Harlequins (your examples) are struggling badly and Leeds, with 9 injured players, are out of the top eight after 11 rounds. This is the club that won the comp last season! Our position isn’t so different as theirs, as you seem to be suggesting.

If we start to get some players back, I think we’ll get better. We aren’t too far off it even now. A lot does ride on the performances of our two props the club have brought in on loan. Hopefully they’ll settle in quickly and our run of bad luck with injuries ceases.

Just to make a final point on this before I leave the subject alone, with a much stronger squad in the earlier rounds, we still conceded far too many points and the defence looked very suspect.

Cant use the injured players excuse for shoddy defence when you have the majority of your squad fit.

We’ve been carrying injuries since the start of the season, so we [ican[/i blame them for our current and past defensive form, including no Haggy, and pick's playing with a neck injury. WE HAVE NOT SEEN OUR FULL STREGNTH TEAM YET!!!!! Using lot’s youngsters – which is a good thing by the way – will also weaken your defence in this league. The demanding physical nature of the game is unforgiving of age and experience. But they can only get that experience by playing and toughening up as they get used to the step up from junior rugby.

I think you are simply jumping to conclusions without looking at the situation and what the club and coach are trying to achieve in bringing in lots youngsters to the first team squad, with a view to the licencing process etc...

Only time will tell if your view of Cullen’s defencive organization of the team is good or not. Now is not the time to make that judgment – it just isn’t.