Player welfare or not : Sun May 29, 2016 10:16 am  

Thought it a bit tough to ask young Joe to play against Cats away after playing for England less than 24hours before hand, when your captain was rested after playing one game against us last Sunday what's that all about ? I think your coaching staff need to think about a young players welfare instead of wrapping well paid Aussys up in cotton wool

[Mild Rover]

Re: Player welfare or not : Sun May 29, 2016 10:25 am  

Campese didn't play based on medical advice.

Also of note, Campese is mainly a stand-off, whereas Wardill played on the wing.

Re: Player welfare or not : Sun May 29, 2016 12:03 pm  

Mild Rover wrote:

Campese didn't play based on medical advice.

Also of note, Campese is mainly a stand-off, whereas Wardill played on the wing.

That's ok then to flog a young lad with 2 games in 24 hours against one of the more physical sides in the comp what's the player welfare officer at your club had to say about that I wonder, there must have been someone to play on the wing by the way thought he did great and credit to him but shouldn't have been put in that game for me

Re: Player welfare or not : Sun May 29, 2016 12:51 pm  

fc-eaststander wrote:

Thought it a bit tough to ask young Joe to play against Cats away after playing for England less than 24hours before hand, when your captain was rested after playing one game against us last Sunday what's that all about ? I think your coaching staff need to think about a young players welfare instead of wrapping well paid Aussys up in cotton wool

Wardill might be needed again on Thursday night. That ok with you?

[Mild Rover]

Re: Player welfare or not : Sun May 29, 2016 1:38 pm  

fc-eaststander wrote:

there must have been someone to play on the wing

Cockayne, Mantellato, Dixon, Minns, Salter and Shaw were all unavailable due to injury. Options were limited.

There's Oakes, but at 17 years old perhaps similar arguments could be made against putting him at risk.

We could have played Campese against medical advice, and moved people about - Blair at centre, Thornley on the wing perhaps. But even the welfare of well paid Aussies has to be considered.

After that, it'd be playing somebody completely out of position (we already had Clarkson playing at centre), not fulfilling the fixture, or asking Wardill not to represent England.

I agree, it wasn't ideal, but do you think any of the alternatives would have been better?

Re: Player welfare or not : Sun May 29, 2016 1:53 pm  

Mild Rover wrote:

Cockayne, Mantellato, Dixon, Minns, Salter and Shaw were all unavailable due to injury. Options were limited.

There's Oakes, but at 17 years old perhaps similar arguments could be made against putting him at risk.

We could have played Campese against medical advice, and moved people about - Blair at centre, Thornley on the wing perhaps. But even the welfare of well paid Aussies has to be considered.

After that, it'd be playing somebody completely out of position (we already had Clarkson playing at centre), not fulfilling the fixture, or asking Wardill not to represent England.

I agree, it wasn't ideal, but do you think any of the alternatives would have been better?

I agree your options where limited but I think it was a bad decision playing a lad twice in 24 hours but he should be commended for his performance because he was excellent probs the Blair to centre and Thornley wing option would have been better as it was the lad came though with no injury that we know of but if he had have got a serious injury there would have been a lot of questions asked I think

[Mild Rover]

Re: Player welfare or not : Sun May 29, 2016 2:17 pm  

fc-eaststander wrote:

I agree your options where limited but I think it was a bad decision playing a lad twice in 24 hours but he should be commended for his performance because he was excellent probs the Blair to centre and Thornley wing option would have been better as it was the lad came though with no injury that we know of but if he had have got a serious injury there would have been a lot of questions asked I think

Tbf, if Campese had got injured when playing against medical advice, the questions would have been even sharper.

As you say, well done to Wardill.

From a Rovers POV, the only realistic choices IMO were to ask him to withdraw from the Academy international or back-up like he did. Worked out for the best, in the end. A fortunate outcome to an unfortunate situation.

Hopefully we're looking at loan options in the backs.

Re: Player welfare or not : Sun May 29, 2016 2:45 pm  

Mild Rover wrote:

Tbf, if Campese had got injured when playing against medical advice, the questions would have been even sharper.

As you say, well done to Wardill.

From a Rovers POV, the only realistic choices IMO were to ask him to withdraw from the Academy international or back-up like he did. Worked out for the best, in the end. A fortunate outcome to an unfortunate situation.

Hopefully we're looking at loan options in the backs.

if its true what rumors are saying and Reece dean has signed for you next year he might aswel go to you now and gain a bit of first team experience now thought Paddy Flynn was a bit of a catch for Cas big strong out side back think you missed out there tbh I am surprised Widnes let him go out maybe fell out with coach

Re: Player welfare or not : Sun May 29, 2016 3:42 pm  

fc-eaststander wrote:

Thought it a bit tough to ask young Joe to play against Cats away after playing for England less than 24hours before hand, when your captain was rested after playing one game against us last Sunday what's that all about ? I think your coaching staff need to think about a young players welfare instead of wrapping well paid Aussys up in cotton wool

whoa whoa since when does hull kr have to justify ourselves to You. You seem to be deluded that we do??

Re: Player welfare or not : Sun May 29, 2016 4:41 pm  

Think Oakes missed the England game through injury.