: Sun Jul 05, 2009 7:45 pm  

Bully_Boxer wrote:

I don't think there is a set age, each player is different. But Donaldson is still a bit on the small side to be playing long stints of top flight RL in the pack.

Exactly. So why have him in the 17 and limit ourselves to 16 players on such a hot day.

: Sun Jul 05, 2009 7:47 pm  

rugbyreddog wrote:

And at what age do we let them get knocked senseless. How old was Sam? How old was Pryce? How old was Fielden?

17, 16, 18.

Getting knocked senseless is part and parcel of a junior player getting intergrated into the first team. God knows why people think getting roughed up and a few big hits is going to ruin a young mans career. All youngsters are targetted, and if they are good enough and tough enough they dust themselves off and go again.

The fans don't expect juniors to set the world alight, and if they make mistakes then so be it, they are learning and they will be better for it next time.

Youngsters in England are all to often wrapped up in cotton wool way to much instead of just letting them go on the field and play their game. A bit of exposure to to what is needed will do them no harm whatsoever.

: Sun Jul 05, 2009 7:47 pm  

Bully_Boxer wrote:

I don't think there is a set age, each player is different. But Donaldson is still a bit on the small side to be playing long stints of top flight RL in the pack.

Then play him at 6.

Although I do agree with what you're saying and I don't necessarily disagree with Donaldson not getting much game time today, there's nothing to lose now. If they don't play so well, oh well nevermind, we're not any worse off than we are now. If they do play well, we've got essentially a new player. We may be able to mathematically make the playoffs, but realistically, it ain't gonna happen. So let's salvage something else out of this season.

: Sun Jul 05, 2009 7:52 pm  

rugbyreddog wrote:

Exactly. So why have him in the 17 and limit ourselves to 16 players on such a hot day.

I expect McNamara was hoping we would dominate Cas more than we did do. If we had taken the effort and performance of the last 2 games into today then it would have been a much better environment to blood him into.

He obviously been playing well for the academy and the coach felt he should be rewarded. The other option would have been to pick Cook, but is there other reasons for him not doing this?

: Sun Jul 05, 2009 7:55 pm  

DILLIGAF wrote:

Then play him at 6.

Although I do agree with what you're saying and I don't necessarily disagree with Donaldson not getting much game time today, there's nothing to lose now. If they don't play so well, oh well nevermind, we're not any worse off than we are now. If they do play well, we've got essentially a new player. We may be able to mathematically make the playoffs, but realistically, it ain't gonna happen. So let's salvage something else out of this season.

Well I'd play Sam at 6 if that meant BJ to 7 and Deacon out the team!

: Sun Jul 05, 2009 7:59 pm  

Bully_Boxer wrote:

Well I'd play Sam at 6 if that meant BJ to 7 and Deacon out the team!

I made a much similar comment when Scruton was about to come back onto the field in the second half today. Something along the lines of "can he play in the halves?"

: Sun Jul 05, 2009 8:06 pm  

I'm not a fan of ball handling 13's but I realise that you have to have some skill in playing that position. Sam Burgess can't even handle the ball well enough at 13, god help us playing him at 6. It would be a disaster of epic proportions.

James Donaldson is supoosedly a ball handler, it should have been a chance to see him in one of his two best positions in 13 & 6.

: Sun Jul 05, 2009 8:07 pm  

Terry Monster wrote:

I'm not a fan of ball handling 13's but I realise that you have to have some skill in playing that position. Sam Burgess can't even handle the ball well enough at 13, god help us playing him at 6. It would be a disaster of epic proportions.

I don't think he was suggesting Burgess would be a good 6. Just can we please god get Deacon off the pitch.

: Sun Jul 05, 2009 8:11 pm  

DILLIGAF wrote:

I don't think he was suggesting Burgess would be a good 6. Just can we please god get Deacon off the pitch.

OK then.

Yeah, Deacs time is long gone.

: Sun Jul 05, 2009 8:12 pm  

DILLIGAF wrote:

I don't think he was suggesting Burgess would be a good 6. Just can we please god get Deacon off the pitch.

Indeed!