I know we have a lot of players out, but the crucial players that are missing is why we have been so poor. Lomax and Roby are our best players and have such an influence when we are attacking.



We also missed Wilkin on Saturday. Ashe was terrible in comparison so it was no wonder why our attack was pathetic.



If we had them 3 back then we would have won the game on Saturday quite convincingly.

Poor Ashe has had all of half a game in two years so I don't know what anyone was expecting from him. Had Brown actually given him some game time with Wilkin, instead of opting for Wello in the halves, Ashe may have been able to offer more to the team on Saturday.

It does. Like how London were down to just 17 available players and had five fewer internationals on the field than we did, yet they beat us. Or how Hull KR have such an injury and form crisis that they have conceded 178 points in their last three games against other sides, yet we managed just 14 and 18 against them and they too beat us convincingly (twice).



Seriously, the injury 'crisis' isn't a good enough excuse. There are more than enough senior players on the field to be winning games against the likes of London and Hull KR. It wasn't any injury crisis that left the team with no halfbacks and incredibly poor prop forwards, it was the board of Directors.

Lets see if he's in for next week then. I understand he hasn't had much game time, but he didn't look anything special.

Ashe reminds me of Wello in the little I've seen of him. Clearly a very competent player, but lacking in the pace to be a fullback at Super League level.

I don't think the post was an attack on Ashe. But just simply stating that Ashe in comparison was not as good. It's not to say he did not try or do his best.



I think from what I heard, he tried everything he could.



It's nothing to do with age.



Same as with Wellens when he plays halfback. He is not as good, I'm sure he busts a gut and tries everything he knows, but effort will only get you so far and ability is what we are missing.

Nobody said it was.





Nobody said it was. However, had he had more [iexperience[/i then he may have been better prepared. And that lack of experience, this season at least, is down to the coach and his foolish decision to play Wello in the halves with Wilkin instead of one of our younger halves.

It wasn't an attack, you're right, but from what I saw on Saturday he didn't look like a first receiver - that was my point. I thought a lot of his ball choices were poor and that meant that we rarely threatened the fringes when we were on their line.



I think we had 3 consecutive sets of 6 on their line in the second half and didn't threaten once. Purely for the reason above re: ball choices. Arguable that these decisions come with time and experience, but hitting the short ball every play meant that if we didn't barge over (or score from distance, Jones blitzed their right centre time after time and made countless breaks) we wouldn't score.



It was a very frustrating match to watch.

When Swift went off injured and Charnock came on, did we reshuffle at all or just pop Dougie on the wing?

Makinson went to the wing and Charnock went to FB

Right. How did he look.

I missed some sections of the radio commentry as I was on baby duty.

Did ok, but because Ashe and Hohaia were consistently playing through the middle, we rarely used the FB in attack. We rarely put 3 passes together to get the third pivot in the game.



I would love to see how many carries Charnock made in their 20. I suspect it would be very low.