Regarding when to use Singleton, you should use your rookie player early in the game, and give them a bit of confidence, and to get a feel for the game.

If they do strugle then there is plenty of time to rectify the situation.

If the coach wants to leave him on the bench and give him a chance when the game is safe then leaving him on the bench is the best option if the game being safe does not occur

Surely the question is why can't the coach trust Singleton (or Moore)? I mean, do we think he can't come on because he's some fekk up waiting to happen? In which case why is he in our Academy let alone near our first team?

FWIW, Ben Currie (one of Warrington's better forwards yesterday) is two years younger than Singleton.

IMO, it's not about when you can or can't "risk" introducing a player it's about our coaches lack of trust in certain players. Either those players are simply not good enough to sik in a first team fixture (which I can't believe given the history of and resources devoted to our Academy) or the issue lies with the coach.

I think people are searching for excuses here. "You can't trust player A at that point because we're winning, you can't trust player A at this point because we're not winning". People have often defended Kirke against my criticisms by saying his role is simply to give Peacock a rest. I don't buy that as an excuse but if that really is a role for one of our 17 first teamers than why can't Singleton (or Moore) do that?

I bet McDermott was concerned that having not been penalised for the first 30 minutes or so, Moore's second involvement in the game was to concede our first penalty.

I thought Moore was unfortunate with that penalty. The Warrington player (can't remember who it was) did their usual attempt to steal ground at the play the ball by flopping forward into the tacklers who were trying to get out of the way.

There are certain players in the competition - and we saw an absolutely perfect example last night in Mickey Higham - who seem to think that the mark is an irrelevance and they should be allowed to tunnel another couple of yards forward before playing the ball.

For what it's worth to you

.....I wholeheartedly agree.

Whatever the virtues of our head coach he does appear very blinkered when it comes to his selections and chances given. It makes you wonder how much he might have been leaned on to blood and regularly select Stevie Ward (even if he still resists playing him in the LF position).

Totally agree with your second point, Saints are always the worst offenders in that regard.
But I do think Moore had a second effort & don't criticise Child's for awarding the penalty.
I thought he was very sensible in his policing of the PTB & that he got the "knock-on" call that lead to Myler's try spot-on.

For all his faults, Kirke is a safe bet. He doesn't make mistakes, he doesn't miss tackles and he rarely gives away penalties. He may not take the ball in as much as wanted, but he is a known quantity, and one that the coach, and the previous coaches have all trusted.

I know nothing about singleton, but it could be that he has a loose carry, or is leaden footed in defence, or is prone to giving away penalties. Or some other reason which made the coach think that throwing him on at the wrong time was not the right call.

Eagle-re Kirke are we watching the same player??
He's made plenty of errors and missed tackles so to talk him up like that is way off imo.

every player makes errors but my view of what I see off him is that his error rate is pretty low.

I don't believe it's a lack of trust in certain players, Singleton, Moore, et al, I think it's having too much faith in the likes of Kylie, JP and Bailey, i.e. while their doing a good job out there - keep then out there.

BMcD's sub rotational policy continues to baffle me but while he's winning games it's hard to question his rationale.

Kirke has certainly averaged a low error count and in the main his missed tackles have been similar in number to fellow bench man Bailey.

But of course it all depends on respective game time and commitment. A player who gives his all with a high work rate, quick line speed and kick chases will quite often have a higher missed tackle rate, something I can forgive.

Not sure about the last point, it's mainly those who don't agree with McDermott's use (or non-use) of subs that have introduced the issue of trust into the debate. McDermott doesn't strike me as the type who'd involve any player in any capacity, even as an unused sub, if he had no trust in them.

Is that the same 2013 Bailey who starts at prop / loose?

Am I the only one who worries that Singleton lacks the size to be a superleague prop?

anyone who's watched him play won't be worried

He's well over 6ft tall and about 15 stone, and he's only 20. I'm sure within 2 or 3 years he'll be a beast.

......by which time, no doubt, he will have been a Wakefield regular for a similar time (along with Hood) whilst Leeds lament not giving another of their fine young acadamey players reasonable game time; instead preferring to give Lleulai and Peacock further additional contract extensions

Ageist?

Leuluai and Peacock are both in great form at present. I for one hope Leuluai can be persuaded to go around again next season if he's still playing this well towards the end of the season and Peacock is still contracted for 2014 so no reason to think he won't still be here.

Still waiting to see this Singleton fella at some point this season to see if he's got more to offer than the likes of Kirke and Moore as an interchange.

"Ageist"? Me? I'd love to see the Vulcan back in RAF service.....



I agree our no.8 and 10 are in fine form and could be the new Steve Menzies's.......but would always prefer to keep the club's possible longer term future as a preference.

Out of interest, which of those players that have departed during recent seasons would you have kept?

Broughton (instead of Donald)

Amor (instead of Griffin)

D.Smith possibly (instead of Moore)

Pitts/Ambler/A.n.other/nearly anybody (instead of Kirke)

Not disagreeing with all of it but you mentioned 2 names Pitts and ambler to replace Kirke. I may be in the minority but ambler is nowhere near kirke and also Pitts for me is proving Leeds right to have let him go

Nooo, Ambler and Pitts would both be world beaters by now if they had stayed at Leeds. Same with Dan Smith.

Just look at what they have achieved since leaving.

Can't you see that?

I agree on Pitts and Ambler, but I still think it was a mistake not to retain Dan Smith, he could well be playing NRL this season.