Quote ="100% Warrior"Generally I don’t. However those I do read into are those who are quite respected. Lam talked about last week how having to play players out of position hurt us. So what does he do? Play Marshall (a winger) at FB and Hanley (a FB) on the wing.
Bullock, our starting prop - whom I can predict his performance without even looking - plays 14mins. He then comes back on at 74mins.
Attack flat, predictable and one dimensional. Defence is said to have improved - clearly it has.
The team we had out was never going to trample Wakey, let’s make that clear. But it was still good enough and experienced enough to win.
Lam simply has to go.'"
Agreed. With a depleted squad all he had to do was pick what he had in their correct positions and say give it a go!
As mentioned on Mikes board by someone else what made Lam think Hanley was a better winger than Marshall and Marshall a better full back than Hanley?
Presumably Hanley possesses the skills and attributes of a full modern back or why is he first choice in the academy? He never looks comfortable on the wing and was caught out tonight. Marshall never passed and so is clearly not a full back. Baffling.
The substitutions were crazy such as doing the same as last week and bringing a prop on for five minutes at the end.
Last week at least Hastings being a half back wasn’t a completely outlandish choice as a full back but by half time when it clearly wasn’t working he did not nothing to change it about.
I think we could and probably should have been able to win both games despite the depleted squads and if Lam was a decent coach I think we may well have. The trouble is I don’t think he has a clue.
