Re: Whitehaven (H) : Tue Feb 17, 2015 6:57 pm  

Whitehaven are currently without a coach after Steve Deakin quit a week before the start of the new season. They are currently being player coached by Brett Seymour. Other than that I know very little about this team.

Re: Whitehaven (H) : Tue Feb 17, 2015 8:45 pm  

dddooommm wrote:

Whitehaven are currently without a coach after Steve Deakin quit a week before the start of the new season. They are currently being player coached by Brett Seymour. Other than that I know very little about this team.

Seem to be in turmoil at the moment - reportedly couldn't raise a team for one of their pre-season games and Barrow beat them by about 40 in another. You'll win very comfortably on Sunday - even 'Fax won up there last weekend - although you have got another 'inexperienced' Championship ref to contend with, just in case Mr Lowes needs any excuses!

Fantastic to see so many Bulls fans at ours last Sunday ( ) - you'll probably notice the difference in away support next weekend!

Re: Whitehaven (H) : Tue Feb 17, 2015 11:13 pm  

[quote="miketaurus"

Zapperbull- Don't you think that some rotation is needed to keep players sharp, we have a big squad and we do not want to have players getting disillusioned and going off mentally in training.

Milketaurus whilst i agree we do need rotation, at this early stage i believe at this early stage we need to get a team playing well together, then as the season progresses it is easier to slot players in to rest others.

Re: Whitehaven (H) : Tue Feb 17, 2015 11:40 pm  

[quote="zapperbull"]

I guess my view is that the gym etc is one thing. Performing in competition is quite another. I would be more generous in accommodating the "Show me why I should pick you?" That will clearly buy into the philosophy that every player has an opportunity.

Re: Whitehaven (H) : Wed Feb 18, 2015 12:19 am  

Some players aren't bothered about an opportunity - #Show me the money

Re: Whitehaven (H) : Wed Feb 18, 2015 12:33 am  

rugbyreddog wrote:

Some players aren't bothered about an opportunity - #Show me the money

Speaking to another fan. Your not on your own with that sentiment :-/

Re: Whitehaven (H) : Wed Feb 18, 2015 10:16 am  

Alan wrote:

Seem to be in turmoil at the moment - reportedly couldn't raise a team for one of their pre-season games and Barrow beat them by about 40 in another. You'll win very comfortably on Sunday - even 'Fax won up there last weekend - although you have got another 'inexperienced' Championship ref to contend with, just in case Mr Lowes needs any excuses!

Fantastic to see so many Bulls fans at ours last Sunday ( ) - you'll probably notice the difference in away support next weekend!

On the refs, I've no idea if its been mentioned in our 44 page bitch fest about the first game but isnt Mr Cobb from last weekend both based in Leigh and a Leigh fan? If so Im not sure he was the wisest choice for such an opening game.

I've no intention of reading all that thread to find out if thats been mentioned, a thread which can be summed up by;
Two good teams, both fired up by passionate fans, went at it, both sets of players and staff had people who should have behaved more professionally, and the more settled team at home got the win with some excellent rugby, but both teams showed why they'll be the two teams to beat this year and whoever drops into the middle 8 from SL will be given a right test by either team.

I am looking forward to the return game and an equally large Leigh following at Odsal later in the year for our two points Just hope the Whitehaven game has half the talking points, but tbf I'd settle for a quieter game and the 2 points first to get us off the mark.

Re: Whitehaven (H) : Wed Feb 18, 2015 10:41 am  

HamsterChops wrote:

I'd expand that and keep the spine of the team the same. Mullaney-Gaskell-Siejka-O'Brien. I can understand replacing players in other positions, but those 4 need plenty of game time playing together to get cohesion.

On reflection I have to agree with that, but if I were Lowes then my first job this week would have been a chat with that idiot Siejka, who the more I have thought about it, I think ultimately cost us the match. He isn't to blame for being a shoite goalkicker, I'm sure he did his best, but still, had he kicked his goals; and he can only do the job he is told to do; but that job does not include setting the worst example, and getting himself totally needlessly sent off the field of play, that was ludicrous and I would be sorely tempted to publicly drop him for his behaviour. I couldn't believe my eyes, if I'm honest. And there's a chance come Thursday the disciplinary may give the idiot a short break anyway.

I think the first thing Lowes needs to do is rapidly sort out the goalkicking, we have a big squad and unless Siejka can rapidly show an ability to become a kicker, then there must be someone who can do it at least passably. Hopefully he will get a lot of practice next weekend and before. But as things stand, he is a seven day camel ride off being a reliable kicker of pressure goals.

Re: Whitehaven (H) : Wed Feb 18, 2015 10:50 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

On reflection I have to agree with that, but if I were Lowes then my first job this week would have been a chat with that idiot Siejka, who the more I have thought about it, I think ultimately cost us the match. He isn't to blame for being a shoite goalkicker, I'm sure he did his best, but still, had he kicked his goals; and he can only do the job he is told to do; but that job does not include setting the worst example, and getting himself totally needlessly sent off the field of play, that was ludicrous and I would be sorely tempted to publicly drop him for his behaviour. I couldn't believe my eyes, if I'm honest. And there's a chance come Thursday the disciplinary may give the idiot a short break anyway.

I think the first thing Lowes needs to do is rapidly sort out the goalkicking, we have a big squad and unless Siejka can rapidly show an ability to become a kicker, then there must be someone who can do it at least passably. Hopefully he will get a lot of practice next weekend and before. But as things stand, he is a seven day camel ride off being a reliable kicker of pressure goals.

If it wasn't for the complete lack of cover in the halves, I'd agree wholeheartedly. Siejka's idiocy on Sunday was a big factor IMO and he should at the very least have his 'arris well and truly kicked. But dropping him would be an issue for us in that it would mean Mullaney or Brook likely having to play in the halves, where there will be a big question on their ability there, and it's another game that the combination wouldn't get experience. It's a shame the person having the brainf*rts on Sunday wasn't one in a more interchangeable position than our only real scrum half.

As far as goal kicking goes, Jake Mullaney started last season as Salford's main goalkicker, so it's bemusing to everyone except Lowes why Siejka seems to have the responsibility.

Re: Whitehaven (H) : Wed Feb 18, 2015 11:15 am  

HamsterChops wrote:

If it wasn't for the complete lack of cover in the halves, I'd agree wholeheartedly. Siejka's idiocy on Sunday was a big factor IMO and he should at the very least have his 'arris well and truly kicked. But dropping him would be an issue for us in that it would mean Mullaney or Brook likely having to play in the halves, where there will be a big question on their ability there, and it's another game that the combination wouldn't get experience. It's a shame the person having the brainf*rts on Sunday wasn't one in a more interchangeable position than our only real scrum half.

As far as goal kicking goes, Jake Mullaney started last season as Salford's main goalkicker, so it's bemusing to everyone except Lowes why Siejka seems to have the responsibility.

I remember Mullaney kicking one from the touchline to beat Hull away last year, need to give someone else a go or see if Shaw can fit in somewhere...must be room available in the threequarters if Walker can get a start at Centre.

On the HB options, I really wish we'd have picked up Sammut, he's still nowhere near the first choice at Wakey and Sammut, Gaskell and Seijka would give us more cover and options. Might even be able to get Sammut on loan if he continues getting no game time at Wakey but I've lost track of our quota position tbh and it might not be an option?