Magic Superbeetle wrote:
I'm sorry, but having decent depth means having players out and still being able to win games like vs widnes (no disrespect to widnes, but according to those very same "experts" weren't going to get close to even challenging for a top 8 spot.) The only key position you were missing was your standoff (who whilst is very good, shouldn't be the be all and end all) - if meli wasn't injured, he should of been dropped after his saints performance!
You missed hock (I only have the saints game to compare to) and with him and chase you might of looked a bit perkier - BUT they wouldn't of stopped you conceding 30+ points either.
Injuries in game were a bit of a blow for you, as they would any team, but smith was poor (you seriously need to figure out any sort of kicking game) and the rest were okay (some good moments, and 1 very good) I'm not sure there's a lot to suggest if they had remained it would of been a different result (it's not like the widnes tries were "tired" tries, they were well constructed)
This isn't the NRL. Most teams in Super League don't have a huge amount of quality outside of their regular starting 17. Before the season started we were held as some sort of lone example of a team with paper thin depth and people were using it to state that we won't have any success this season. Take 4 or 5 of a normal starting 17 out of a team and they're going to experience problems, especially when two of them are arguably their best players.