Using one less interchange

[No straw damn us]

Having Sammut on the bench was an absolute waste and similar circumstances should be avoided at all costs.

Given our injury record and only 8 interchanges, we cannot afford it. Do other clubs put themselves in the same position? From memory, no.

I know momentum can be lost when making subs, but I think it shows Lam is only confident in Sammut in certain circumstances. We have no room in the squad for players like that.

Yes they do Daryl Powell did it at Cas earlier this year when they beat us, O'Neill never came on. The reason Lam didn't bring Sammut was that we lost a forward ( middle) and we needed someone who could defend and take the ball up. Had we lost say Williams or Hardaker etc then he would have made different changes. He did use his eight changes, so I don't see the problem.

[Wigan_forever1985]

Another concern is fatigue building up over the season. Wane and Bitcon were brilliant at managing this, especially with props. I'm not sure that you can do it effectively and use/not use subs as we do currently.

However, I do appreciate that's it's probably a case of "needs must" given departures and injuries.

But Sammut wouldn’t be interchanged with a prop so there is no extra fatigue to the forwards as they would have the same amount of usage with or without Sammut being used the only ones who stand to earn an extra rest would be Tommy or powell

If you’re suggesting that 4 forwards on the bench is the answer then that leaves you incredibly limited if you do pick up a knock in the backs and doesn’t allow you to “change up” the game from the bench really

[morley pie eater]

Another concern is fatigue building up over the season. Wane and Bitcon were brilliant at managing this, especially with props. I'm not sure that you can do it effectively and use/not use subs as we do currently.

However, I do appreciate that's it's probably a case of "needs must" given departures and injuries.

But Sammut wouldn’t be interchanged with a prop so there is no extra fatigue to the forwards as they would have the same amount of usage with or without Sammut being used the only ones who stand to earn an extra rest would be Tommy or powell

If you’re suggesting that 4 forwards on the bench is the answer then that leaves you incredibly limited if you do pick up a knock in the backs and doesn’t allow you to “change up” the game from the bench really

I wasn't saying anything about Sammut or the Hull match in particular. More of a general point about the need for longer term strategic planning. I think it's fair to say that our success in getting to and winning GFs over the past few years has been due *in some measure* to managing resources, part of which is keeping props fresh.

Playing 4 forwards on the bench is one way to do this, another maybe risking a loss at Widnes by resting key players. I accept your point about the pissibolity of needing cover for a back, but having 2 backs on the bench doesn't seem to fit the bill.

I also acknowledged that injuries and departures may have made some of Lam's decisions for him. But don't be surprised if we get to the play-offs and our props look jaded. (Personally, given the season we've had, I'll be happy that we get to the play-offs.)

[nathan_rugby]

I do not have a problem with having Sammut on the bench if he gets used. He can come on for Powell or Tommy and one of them can move to hooker if required. This should only be the case if we plan to interchanges our hookers, if not, it is pointless.

I do not advocate having a FB/W/C on the bench. If an injury to the backs does happen we have enough ability to make shift, move around for the game and manage accordingly.

Sarginson can play FB
Isa and Farrell have covered at Centre
Hankinson, if playing, can cover W and Centre