Because we lost to Hull, It's the end of the world to some of them.

OK compared to your good self he is whippet thin. However he certainly looked a lot chunkier than usual. He was also clearly struggling with his mobility from the start which makes his selection all the more questionable when there aren't enough players in the dobbins pack capable of longer minutes to cover for him.

Nowt wrong with the decision to bring Ben back in, he will be better for the run out and clearly suffered no reaction to the knee injury.

So, in other words, it's like losing your cup final.

Read the words as they are written you frepping plank, 'to some of them'.

What you doing here, ran out of socks?

As i said before, it's fun beating you lot but nothing like being in a cup final. Moved on to thinking about our top of the table clash with Huddersfield now so I'll leave you to dwell on your humiliating defeat.

It was harder to swallow the loss to Castleford, the Hull loss was expected but if you're happy in thinking that we're humiliated then fine, swing back to your treehouse and insert inanimate objects into your rectum for a few hours, that'll calm you down.

At least you competed in the Cas game, yesterday your supposedly big and scary pack rolled over to a makeshift one with players with very little SL experience and a guy who came out of retirement, plus a margin of 30 points to your most bitter rivals and you don't think that was humiliating? Never realised you set your standards so low.

If your 'missing' 8 players played, Rovers would have won.

Castleford was a game we were expected to win, bookies gave them a 12 start. We were expected to lose to Hull, we had an 8 start.

Like I said, more disappointing to lose to Cas in what should have been a walk over than love to Hull in what was nailed on for a Hull win from the start.

Who were your 8 missing players and who's place in the team that played would they have taken?

Moa, o meley, o carroll, green, heremaia, westerman all in the pack Martin in the backs don't know who the 8th is meant to be. Why would you possibly think you would have won with these players in?

Who wouldn't have played?

Radford, Bowden, Pitts, Aspinwall, Turner, Ellis possibly Whiting.

Aspinwall and Whiting? I take it you haven't seen many games this year. Aspinwall has been playing really well and Whiting is undroppable on current form.

I said possibly Whiting. It's hard to guess what our coach would do having to make extremely difficult decisions. Assuming everyone was fit and in good form, Where would they play?

And I'm saying Whiting would definitely have played. And almost certainly Aspinwall. It's up to Westerman to earn a recall now, he's not an automatic first choice.

Unfortunately, it's all guess work though isn't it, know one knows what our coach would do.

who on the rovers site cares

You have a point,but it being R.L. somebody might.

As dum dum asked the original question, I assume he must have at least a passing interest.

I don't

I could say with a fair degree of certainty that the coach wouldn't drop one of our most consistent performers unless he was injured.

I was interested because the number 8 keeps getting thrown around in the trolling, chimp can only name 6 of the squad who played that would possibly have missed out, 2 of which were challenged. So 4 players were missing? It's halved, just like that.

I think the press hinted that McKinnon was struggling to get back after a groin injury. I reckon thats the 8th man, however as we all know he played so thats 7 first team players out in total with that last three minutes being played with 12 men when Horne left the field of play with a groin strain.

Moa, O'Meley and O'Carroll would definitely have played. Losing 3 of your first 4 props is significant for any team. I wouldn't make much of the other absentees though. Martin, for example, wouldn't have shifted Turner, who is there on merit.

I think it's 8 players unavailable for selection. Of those I reckon 3 or 4 would have played. Mind you, they are all forwards and three of them are props so the effect was probably amplified a bit. I never really had a concern about the backs who are (or were) pretty much at full strength.