Eagles v Haven - Your reaction?

[recregoer]

We didn't get beaten by Sheffield because our half back combination were playing out of their skins, we got beat because in attack we had no flair and speed.  Yes the Eagles were good in defence but only because we made them look good by doing the same old predictable patterns of play. Its been the same all season made worse on Thursday because the lads were understandably still tired after Sundays efforts.

Bamber would have brought a bit more speed & enthusiasm to the party, made things less predictable and maybe we could have won the game, we certainly could not have done any worse ! Who would he have replaced ? Baldwin & Spencer shouldn't have played Baldwin for obvious reasons and Spencer because he was/is unfit after his illness (should have had a month off if he lost 17lb's). Still leaves Leroy & Rudd on the field playing as they have been most of the season. If Duffy is out for the rest of the season then Bamber has to play for however many games we have left, there is nothing to lose and everything to gain.

how do you know he would have brought more speed and enthusiasm? he doesnt run rings round players in the academy league so what is to say he will be able to put moves on that will beat experienced first teamers? apparently he had a shocker against dewsbury in the play offs when the pressure was on

He couldn't really have brought less. Do you think that we can get through the play offs only scoring 2 or 3 tries in a game, because if we keep things the same thats the way there going to have to do it.

[Keith]

For what it's worth I thought Baldwin, Trindall and Seeds all looked terribly slow on Thursday evening and I don't think Gary Broadbent is at the top of his game either.   

[haven lad 06]

We didn't get beaten by Sheffield because our half back combination were playing out of their skins, we got beat because in attack we had no flair and speed.  Yes the Eagles were good in defence but only because we made them look good by doing the same old predictable patterns of play. Its been the same all season made worse on Thursday because the lads were understandably still tired after Sundays efforts.

Bamber would have brought a bit more speed & enthusiasm to the party, made things less predictable and maybe we could have won the game, we certainly could not have done any worse ! Who would he have replaced ? Baldwin & Spencer shouldn't have played Baldwin for obvious reasons and Spencer because he was/is unfit after his illness (should have had a month off if he lost 17lb's). Still leaves Leroy & Rudd on the field playing as they have been most of the season. If Duffy is out for the rest of the season then Bamber has to play for however many games we have left, there is nothing to lose and everything to gain.

how do you know he would have brought more speed and enthusiasm? he doesnt run rings round players in the academy league so what is to say he will be able to put moves on that will beat experienced first teamers? apparently he had a shocker against dewsbury in the play offs when the pressure was on

do you think we can get through the play offs with an inexperienced half back? one who will buckle under the pressure of the play offs and being on the tele, and if your argument is "well he couldnt do any worse" then why put him in? thats going to do loads for team morale isnt it? players will be thinking "hes coming in and not doing anything more then the player that has been dropped" im all for giving bamber his chance in the first team but in the NRC next season not in the play off where we need to be on top of our game very time we step onto the field

He couldn't really have brought less. Do you think that we can get through the play offs only scoring 2 or 3 tries in a game, because if we keep things the same thats the way there going to have to do it.

[Martin]

If you had read my posting you would have seen that I said bring Bainbridge in for Baldwin or Spencer, both of whom did little in Thursdays game by general agreement. There is adequet cover in the forwards so that either Rudd or Leroy could play loose forward and retain the same bench ......... Like I said Bainbridge would have brought a bit more speed and enthusiasm to the team which given the overall performance and the fact that we lost anyway would have to be a welcome addition.

[haven lad 06]

you cannot know for definate that he would have brought more speed and enthusiasm just like i cannot know for sure that he would buckle under the pressure these are just opinions that each of us and others have. There would be no point however i feel putting rudd in loose as this season we are just using the loose as another 2nd row and rudd is not the type of player who will take a ball up every set of 6. The only problem i have with your (and others) point of view is that people are saying rudd and leroy,two vastly experienced players in this league, didnt play well against a fired up sheffield team so the solution is to play a vastly inexperienced player in this league against what will be a very fired up leigh team. If bamber gets picked and plays well and wins the game i will the first on eating siome humble pie but i cannot see that happening all that i can see happening if he plays is the rough leigh forwards clattering into him at every opportunity and him losing a grip on the game in the first 10 -15 minutes

[recre]

But doesn't the lack of anything creative last Thursday not show you that we NEED a half back in there, you've gone on and on about him buckling under pressure when we played Dewsbury, but to me he didn't do that bad and other games he's played suggests that he can cope. What do you want to see, the way we've played lately shows that once Duffy is out we are lacking idea's big style, all you want to do is continue along those lines, if it continues like that we've absolutely no chance whatsoever of getting very far in the playoffs (I don't think we've much chance anyhow but we've got to give ourselves a chance) all we seem to do now is amble in for 5 tackles and hope something occurs from a kick through to the opposition line, as we saw last week end the middle of the road teams in this league can cope with that so we HAVE to come up with some new ideas, or just forget about any sort of progress. If Duffy isn't playing this week we've got to alter things or just watch the same old rubbish that hasn't been working for ages. Is that what you want??

[Maca]

well said marra

[cbandg01]

Teams (coaches) have to have arrangements in place to cover team positions in case of injury throughout the season.

if a key player (like Duffy) is lost long term and early in the season then there is always the option to buy a replacement.

Throughout this season (whenever Duffers has been out) the most favoured cover for him has been through the use of Leroy and Carl. Bamber had some chances early on, but obviously didn't do enough then ( or subsequently in acadamy games) to displace them as a viable option in regular season games.

Leroy and Carl have not set the world alight, but neither have they let the team down when Duffy has beed out. They are NOT the long term answer to our halfback pairing for the future ...........(i have previously posted the opinion that Rudd should be Loose Forward next season and Leroy come off the bench as an impact player with a new fast stand off to partner Duffers).........but they ARE the best option at this critical time.

Why throw away whatever chance we may have to progress in the playoffs by playing a 'failing' Bamber. He isn't ready yet, .....and many are of the opinion that he never will be without some vast level of improvement. in play and attitude... me included.