Whiting should have been on in place of Horne who for for 70mins was awful yet again...gets 1 lucky kick away for Briscoes 1st and sets up 2nd...sorry but i want my 6 doing more than crap kicks and getting caught in possesion.

Fitz was knackered in the final quarter , entirely understandably. OK so Whiting was a utility but why not use that utility to give Fitz a spell? It's not as if Whiting is a threequarter is it! We'd surely get more quality minutes out of Fitz if he played a few less and we'll be more liely to still have him on the pitch later in the year rather than injured/burnt out. The game's too hard to play it with 16 men by choice.

Thought Moa also looked like his second spell was a touch too long, he was out on his feet when they were down to 12 men. Also thought we could have used that spell to give Fitz a short rest.

Yep, which makes perfect sense.

Although I understand he was ill in the week, I'm still puzzled by giving Westy just 7 minutes before HT. People mentioned that the HT sub rule has changed so a change just before HT means that a player can start the second half, but I still find it odd when rotations are made so close to HT.

Sharp was having a nightmare, at fault for at least 1 of their tries last night...Should of come off alot earlier if you ask me.

I am not griping about the way we played, I thought it was good. In my opinion a player is either fit or not, that includes the bench. Also in my opinion you should never attempt to play with 16 players. Clearly you should utilise the bench more effectively. I don't understand why I should go to Brantingham to tell lauaki anything. It's just my opinion on an internet forum. Get over yourself.

He speaks really highly of you apparently.

Although Sharp carries an attacking threat, his defence is somewhat lacking. I thought the decision to bring on Whiting late in the game was spot on. The game was won and with Whitings better defence we had a far more solid look. Agar was closing down the game. Whiting may not like the utility player tag but he is such a good utility player and as such the ideal player to have on the bench. I bet all of us breathed a big sigh of relief when Rich replaced Sharp. He must have the safest, most unflappable pair of hands in the game.

My only issue with this is why have a player occupying a bench spot for the sake of it as a 'utility' in a kind of 'just incase' mind set. It could have been used for a further prop or second row to offer a bit more rotation. In hindsight, we didn't really need it last night and I thought all the forwards did well last night and Danny Houghton seems to relish playing 80 mins. However, week after next I imagine Obst will be back on the bench so it won't be an issue.

To be fair he did back up well when players made a break, often the only player to do so.

But it should be his last season with us.

Can you explain that in English

Got them right last night . And got the 2 points.

Someone said you can't make changes at half time anymore (I think) so anyone you want to start the 2nd half with must be already on the field, hence making changes with 90 seconds to go to HT.

Is that better?

ah right, never saw that and its first ive heard of it

Thought Horne played well, was involved in a lot of the good stuff.

I disagree, he was poor.

Don't know if it's right, but it might explain why Moa and Lauaki have been brought on with 90 seconds to go in the first half of a couple of games.

If its not a new rule then there is madness at work.

IYO

Forgive my ignorance Tommy, but I don't know what that means,

In Your Opinion? I know it isn't usual abbreviation, but I thought I would make sense. Obviously not

It does make sense mate....clearly I was having a blonde moment

Phew!

If that is the case, why do we not see other coaches doing the same in games?

Maybe we really do have a true visionary as a coach after all?

Hang on, didnt Longy go off at half time the other week?

Think someones tuggin your Mr Jones