Hendo is a trier, but as you can see I am not his biggest fan. He tries hard but I'm sure given a little more time so too could the likes of Gledhill & Annakin etc... I would have had Hendo on the bench today but would have also liked to have seen Gledhill or Annakin over Veivers.

I grant you Gledhill & Annakin are not ready yet but that said, my point is if the likes of Annakin & Gledhill can't make the 17 due to someone like Hendo stopping them stepping in and getting a go and some SL experience then that is what upsets me has a fan. Rumour already has it some of our youngsters are getting upset at getting continuously overlooked.

Build for the future and give youth a chance or continue to select players like Hendo. I know what I'd do.

For the money were paying Hendo his wages would contribute massively to youth development within the club in a time where we really need to start planning throughout the club with this in mind. Hendo, Tony & J Smith IMHO should all be shown the door and let us build for the future, build British!

Agreed re game changed comment. Said the same on another thread elsewhere.

Looking forward to the next game already...

[=#FF00FF:17hwtxt8quote="cool4kats":17hwtxt8what are you talking about mate hendo plays prop better than either gledhill or annakin like both of the lads but gledhill gets knocked back in nearly every colision not got the power or the strenght needs more time so dose annakin dont thnik the bench made much diffrance today:17hwtxt8.

But the point this season of rebuilding is to give these sort of players time and experience.

You see Gledhill very different to me.

People keep going on about the missed touch, to me the game was lost in the first half, we just did not score enough points with the possesion we had.

I can't understand what benefit a full back on the bench is to team.

Gledhill or Annakin should have played instead of Veivers i think, and Wildie should have been given more time on the field than he did. What is all this about trying to protect Gledhill? This was said last year and this. Whenever i have seen him he has gone well. Earlier on this season didnt he not play a u21s game thursday and backed up again sunday and did ok. When i have seen him it is not like he is getting banjoed every time he takes a ball up and is work rate is very good. Confusing.

I really hate having a go at JK and do normally defend him. However I have to agree with the general sentiment on here.

I don't think JK gets it wrong because he doesn't understand modern coaching methods, to even suggest that is silly. He clearly does this on purpose and clearly has a plan. Vievers was not a forced selection. Problem is absolutely no one gets it except JK.

I can only conclude Kear is being a smarty pants and actually believes his own legend.

JK give your head a shake, yes you know far more than anyone who posts on here and I mean anyone but you're not god and you can't change the laws of nature. There is no way that a young inexperienced lightweight FB on the bench is a good idea. Gledhill and Anakin may not be a great deal better as they too are young inexperienced and lightweight but at least they play in the positions that normally inhabit the subs bench.

I would hate to see JK sacked but frankly he's sacking himself with these selections and that would be a shame.

Saturday and Sunday not Thursday and Sunday!

Stand corrected. So Ben G was ok to back up and play the day after in that situation, but not ok to do it after playing this Thursday did he not? He is either ready or he isnt. I think either Ben or Annakin would have given more than Veivers off the bench yesterday. It was like playing with only 3 subs!! Confusing!!!

My only conclusion is that when Vievers was stepped down JK did the right thing and explained to him that it was for the good of his development and that he would be back within a couple of games.

That then makes it difficult for JK not to pick him in some capacity sooner rather than later because not picking him means JK loses some credibility and stepping the next youngster down becomes more difficult.

Man management is a difficult balancing act and often calls for compromises between what is right for the team and what is right for the individual. One way round the issue is to use the layers of coaches to inform players of decisions and to then move the responsibility for communication up the pecking order to deliver more weighty news.

For eg. Paul Broadbent could have explained to Vievers why he was being rested and when the time to play him came and he was not going to be picked then JK takes time out to explain the reasons. The result is Vievers is disappointed not to be back in the team but feels better about it because the head coach has taken time to explain it one to one.

If you're not set up to do this from the Outset it's hard to implement at a later stage but I would think JKs been around long enough to have this sort of tiered man management in place.

Of course the other option is to just tell the player to 'man up' or even completely ignore the players thought and feelings but that eventually leads to discontented factions growing in the dressing room

What happens in a couple of weeks when Matt B is fit, do we have two fullbacks on the bench?

Kick-offs (again), anyone?

Brent Webb really struggled didn't he?


I suggest we just continue with the pressure kick offs to him for the return game at Headingley.

So with the vital substitutions in question, was it something like..
Hooker off, so scrum half to hooker and sub to scrum half.
Second row off, so centre to second row, full back to centre and sub to full back.

This certainly goes the way that JK does his substitutions, he overcomplicates the flow of the team. We have seen in recent years, too many hookers and halves on the pitch at once, having a fb on the bench is quite a brave choice.

In my opinion only, by interupting the set up of the team, the other players, the support players if you like are disrupted too. The combination of Lee and Rinaldi was good, then Lee takes on a completely different role that requires him to adjust his game and his approach too. But the added effect is that you affect Jeffries too, his partnership has changed in dynamic too. By making that switch, you have affected the three of the four key players in the side. Brave move with young players who are still getting used to playing together.

Murphy was linking well with attacking play at full back and we looked strong with him there, by shifting that player, the strength is weakened by moving him and his need to adapt too - and for one of our better players, it neutralises the influence he has on the play. Can we afford to be doing that when we have one of the better clubs in SL on the back foot?

Note: Obviously we are not privy to reasons as to why the bench was chosen as it was, or why changes were necessarily made, but from the sidelines once again it does look to be an area we need to be more careful with. JK is way more experienced at coaching top level rugby league than any of us, but still we need to have confidence in what is happening.

Iin fairness the only reason why Veivers and more recently Griffin are getting game time is because we have no one to else to kick goals! If we had a goal kicking half back these two would be know where near the starting 17.

Don't forget the prop forwards lurking 10 yards behind the catcher - just enough to get a right good head of steam up before the defensive line gets to him!

spoke to kingy yesterday and he is 3 to 4 weeks away yet.

Now that is ridiculous.

Griffin looks a great prospect at centre and has done very well in every game since his arrival.

For me, he would be one of the first choice centres now which makes it possible to leave Murphy at Fullback where I think he is best.

You are his older brother and I claim my 5quid!

In your opinion its ridiculous...come on the Fordy! How many games have you watched him in, eh? Not many, I thought not!

If you think he is one of our first choice Centres, that is fair enough but by calling him a great prospect you are comparing him to the likes of Kallum Watkins, Tom Briscoe etc etc.

Actually thought Griffin had his worst game so far yesterday but up to that point he had been impressive and will continue to improve.

Agree with the point earlier about moving the backline players all over just to accomodate a 'tactical' subsitutuion is wrong. The only time that should happen is if injuries dictate or we are getting an absolute shallacking. neither was the case yesterday. Two props, a backrower that can cover centre and a replacement hooker is ideal for the bench and I can't see why Kear would want to change that.

Maybe it's a bit early to call him a great prospect, fair enough. However I would say even from the few games I have seen of him he looks to me to be one of the best options we have at centre. He is certainly not in there purely for his goalkicking as you suggested.

Let's just say we both went a bit far with our assessments.

Right..I am happy to accept I was a little bit strong with my statement about Griffin, however I still think it is valid against Veivers. Just out of curosity, would you say that the best centre combination is/would be:

a) Dean & Griffin (Meaning Murph will be at Full Back)
b) Murph & Dean (Meaning Blaymire at Full Back)
c) Mariano & Murph (Switch Dean to 2nd Row)

There are a number of other possibilities as well. People say George is more of a Centre, but would you honestly want him defending a little bit further in every week?- I am not sure I would.

Griffin has done well so far but was poor yesterday but this happens to all players from time to time.

If you look at Josh Charnly at Wigan for example, Last week against Huddersfield he was been hailed as a future star whereas this week against Warrington he had a nightmare. It happens to all players, i don't think we should be too hard on players espescially young ones if they have one bad game.

At the minute I would say option a) looks like our strongest line-up
Dean looks good in the centres, although not spectacular IMO
Griffin I think had his worst game yesterday but on other performances has shown up really well
Murphy is at his best at Fullback IMO giving him the option to come into the line when we're attacking

see for what its worth I agree with you. However, when Blaymire returns I think it will be a Murphy and Dean partnership in the centres, with Johnson and George on the wings. I don't know who I prefer on the wings in honesty.

Much as I like Blaymire as a player, he is definitely second choice full back behind Murphy. We only have a few "class acts" so Murphy must remain full back on that basis. Unfortunately, Blaymire needs to re-invent himself as a loose forward or he will always be behind Murphy.

Centres pick themselves at the moment - Dean & Griffin and despite George's hopeless defensive performance he and Johnson offer our best attacking option. Having now seen Blanch's defence against Salford on Sunday he did make George's defence look fairly competent.