Salford : Wed Jun 16, 2010 2:43 pm  

sooooooooooooooo.......

Who's going to Salford? Anyone?
It seems really strange that I aren't even thinking of going. My NL1 attitude of "Whitehaven isn't that far, lets go!" has been replaced by "Salford? That's bloody miles away, sod that!"

It is a huge game for us, one which will take us within touching distance of the play off positions if we win, and if we lose then we are back in the mix for 2nd from bottom. At the start of the season we hammered Salford who looked awful but now.... I think they will hammer us. Come on RW get some good deals on coach travel on! TM get Arundel in the team!
....................................................................................................................................

And yes it did take me ages to line that up!

Re: Salford : Wed Jun 16, 2010 2:54 pm  

I seriously think we will lose this game. Especially if we give away as many penalties as we did yesterday

I'm not going, but I haven't been to any away game this season except for Wakefield due to funds

Re: Salford : Wed Jun 16, 2010 3:17 pm  

If we don't beat Salford, knowing it will keep us in with a shout of the playoffs then something really is very wrong. They will be up for this one though. Too close to call for me.

Re: Salford : Wed Jun 16, 2010 6:04 pm  

I'll probably end up going. Should be a tough game for both sides and i don't see much between us. I don't have any silly dreams about play offs, we haven't even got a team good enough to compete at that level and if we did make it i'd fear an embarrassing defeat. Maybe a loss to Salford wouldn't be so bad, that said, even if we win i don't expect it'll help us reach the play offs as for me we're too far off already.

Re: Salford : Wed Jun 16, 2010 6:49 pm  

marshman wrote:

I'll probably end up going. Should be a tough game for both sides and i don't see much between us. I don't have any silly dreams about play offs, we haven't even got a team good enough to compete at that level and if we did make it i'd fear an embarrassing defeat. Maybe a loss to Salford wouldn't be so bad, that said, even if we win i don't expect it'll help us reach the play offs as for me we're too far off already.

I can't see were we would make up the 4 point gap tbh

Re: Salford : Wed Jun 16, 2010 10:26 pm  

Team, IMO, judging by people's comments, should be:

Thompson
Dixon
Arundel
McGoldrick - don't put him back to full-back, please TM!
Wainwright
Widders
Chase
Higgins
Hudson
Jackson
Huby
Snitch
Westerman

Bench: Ferres, Wood, Jones, Sargent.

Re: Salford : Thu Jun 17, 2010 7:59 am  

I thought that TM's reshuffle with 15 minutes to go on Tuesday (JT to wing, KD to fullback) was an interesting call and wonder whether he'll stick with that on Sunday.

Re: Salford : Thu Jun 17, 2010 8:32 am  

Why oh why not pair chace/wood as half backs.
We need pace and speed in that department, widders just does not have that.
Widders should be on the bench due being able to cover Centre/SO or in the pack.

Makes my blood boil playing players out of position.

Re: Salford : Thu Jun 17, 2010 10:52 am  

Morning fellas. Hope a few of you can make it over on Sunday for what should be a close match. We've been preety decent at home recently and the margin of Wire's win at our place the other week flattered them slightly. Weather is set fair so hopefully it will encourage both teams to throw the ball about and make for an entertaining game. We're still missing our best prop Cashmere but hopefully Dan Holdsworth will make it back from injury in time for the game.

I'll be honest and admit I 've only seen highlights of Cas on Sky this season so I'm not best placed to comment on your current team. Who do we need to be worried about this weekend?

Re: Salford : Thu Jun 17, 2010 10:59 am  

poppys mum wrote:

Why oh why not pair chace/wood as half backs.
We need pace and speed in that department, widders just does not have that.
Widders should be on the bench due being able to cover Centre/SO or in the pack.

Makes my blood boil playing players out of position.

To be fair to TM, Hudson can't do the full 80 and so Wood is the obvious choice to fill in at hooker.
Pairing Wood/Chase is good until Hudson needs a rest which then means using someone like Jones to fill in at Hooker. To me that's as bad as Widders at stand off so it doesn't make much difference.

An alternative thing in my view is move Westerman to stand off and pair with chase when Hudson is off and move Wood to hooker. You can then use Jones, Ferres, Snitch or Widders to cover at 13. As long as you can tackle well, you can make a half decent show of covering at 13. Hooker is one of the few specialised positions that you shouldnt mess with. You need someone who can distribute at all times or you will go nowhere.