Why bring up Dixon when he didn't even play in the game?

I was making a more general point about the London team. With Dixon as a first choice winger, because of his attacking skills, the team is carrying a liability in defence. Most teams in the NRL would not take on that burden, no matter how potent an attacker a player is, but if a team does, it needs to know that a non-tackler can be "carried" by having competent defenders in all other positions to make up for him.

London showed in the game against Leeds that there are many poor defenders in the team that played. I don't know how that can be rectified other than by finding (buying?) replacements who are competent defenders. If that doesn't happen then London, with several weak defenders in the team, are going to be walloped every week by every other team.

Kick them out and hang Gus for treason. lol

Our squad is packed full of kids. I'm all for giving youngsters a go, but the average age is probably around 21 or 22. Of the more experienced players, Cook is a solid forward who won't set the world on fire, Moore is a mercurial character who might set something on fire, and Slyney is a fringe NRL player. We look terribly lightweight in the forwards and need an established leader.

we're absolutely ed......there really is no other way of putting it!