Page 3 of 4
Re: Sam Powell
Posted: Sat Oct 05, 2019 10:15 pm
by fozzieskem
DaveO wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2019 10:06 pm
Low Down Yankee Liar wrote:Sam was obviously injured and did not have full confidence in his wrist but it must of been thought that if we were to progress to Old Trafford then we had no choice but to play him as nobody else at the club can do the job that he does. Its no coincidence that our loss of form and direction came with the injury to Sam.
Nonsense. Lam played an injured player who proved to be a liability v Saints and made the same mistake v Salford. If we lost form due to his injury a big reason for that is he was picked to play and was a passenger. Any fit player would have done a better job.
Tommy who has played 9 for NZ can play hooker just as good as Powell and tackles even harder and we have Summat who wasn’t picked who could play 7. Would that have been Lams preferred line up? No but when your preferred line up had one of its players injured playing him so you can stick with you preferred team is stupid.
If not stupid then certainly inflexible that's for sure.
Re: Sam Powell
Posted: Sun Oct 06, 2019 10:05 pm
by Low Down Yankee Liar
DaveO wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2019 10:06 pm
Low Down Yankee Liar wrote:Sam was obviously injured and did not have full confidence in his wrist but it must of been thought that if we were to progress to Old Trafford then we had no choice but to play him as nobody else at the club can do the job that he does. Its no coincidence that our loss of form and direction came with the injury to Sam.
Nonsense. Lam played an injured player who proved to be a liability v Saints and made the same mistake v Salford. If we lost form due to his injury a big reason for that is he was picked to play and was a passenger. Any fit player would have done a better job.
Tommy who has played 9 for NZ can play hooker just as good as Powell and tackles even harder and we have Summat who wasn’t picked who could play 7. Would that have been Lams preferred line up? No but when your preferred line up had one of its players injured playing him so you can stick with you preferred team is stupid.
Sam wanted to play and Sammut too was not fully fit. There was little option for changes to the line up other than bringing in one of the young guys or switching somebody to 9 that is not accustomed to playing 9. Each way was a gamble and AL decided to go with Sam as that looked the best option.
Re: Sam Powell
Posted: Sun Oct 06, 2019 10:21 pm
by wall_of_voodoo
Low Down Yankee Liar wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2019 10:05 pm
Sam wanted to play and Sammut too was not fully fit. There was little option for changes to the line up other than bringing in one of the young guys or switching somebody to 9 that is not accustomed to playing 9. Each way was a gamble and AL decided to go with Sam as that looked the best option.
So Sammut was not fully fit? Yet we have NEVER had any update on Holts to suggest otherwise than Lam didn't want to select him. We can both argue about this point but fact remains that Powell clearly WAS injured and needed a scan to check if he had received a broken wrist after the first meeting v Salford. The fact there was no update but he laboured badly with one arm in both the following matches suggest that if it wasn't broken then he did have serious damage that wasn't being made public
We did have options, but it fine to ignore them if it suits an agenda. Leuluai is a former international hooker so it is not out of his realms to have played in that position. As for who played in the halves. Well if you are correct about Sammut's "injury" then we could have played Lockers there (a position he is not unaccustomed too either) or worst case Shorrocks
But no - lets play a one armed player who couldn't play to the best of his limited capability because we had "little option to change" when there quite clearly was if Adrian Lam didn't play favourites with his team selections and was willing to play players in their more favourable positions.
BTW where was the clubs' duty of care to Powell if he worsened the wrist and forced him to retire for this act of stupidity???
Re: Sam Powell
Posted: Sun Oct 06, 2019 10:39 pm
by Levrier
Time to stick my head over the parapet. For me the change in Sam Powell has been one of the great plusses of this season. His solidity in defence and his improvement going forward has made him on of our stand out players this season. Having said that there is no way that he should have been playing last week or this. It is the coaches job to tell pig headed players that they will not be considered. If that meant that Amir was brought in then very well but Tommy could have played hooker and we could have covered the halves with SOL or even Hankinson who has played there or even brought Smith in. At the end of the day Powell was not fit and when Tommy went off we had no plan B.
Re: Sam Powell
Posted: Sun Oct 06, 2019 11:04 pm
by fozzieskem
Low Down Yankee Liar wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2019 10:05 pm
DaveO wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2019 10:06 pm
Low Down Yankee Liar wrote:Sam was obviously injured and did not have full confidence in his wrist but it must of been thought that if we were to progress to Old Trafford then we had no choice but to play him as nobody else at the club can do the job that he does. Its no coincidence that our loss of form and direction came with the injury to Sam.
Nonsense. Lam played an injured player who proved to be a liability v Saints and made the same mistake v Salford. If we lost form due to his injury a big reason for that is he was picked to play and was a passenger. Any fit player would have done a better job.
Tommy who has played 9 for NZ can play hooker just as good as Powell and tackles even harder and we have Summat who wasn’t picked who could play 7. Would that have been Lams preferred line up? No but when your preferred line up had one of its players injured playing him so you can stick with you preferred team is stupid.
Sam wanted to play and Sammut too was not fully fit. There was little option for changes to the line up other than bringing in one of the young guys or switching somebody to 9 that is not accustomed to playing 9. Each way was a gamble and AL decided to go with Sam as that looked the best option.
Powell would play in a full body cast ffs,the club has a duty of care as mentioned above to players to say no, stop making ridiculous excuses for a terrible bit of team selection by Lam,if there is no one who could have replaced him then Wigan is in far sorrier state than people seem to think, but we know there's plenty of replacements but for whatever reason Lam chose to play someone clearly not fit.
Re: Sam Powell
Posted: Mon Oct 07, 2019 8:38 am
by pedro
Low Down Yankee Liar wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2019 10:05 pm
DaveO wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2019 10:06 pm
Low Down Yankee Liar wrote:Sam was obviously injured and did not have full confidence in his wrist but it must of been thought that if we were to progress to Old Trafford then we had no choice but to play him as nobody else at the club can do the job that he does. Its no coincidence that our loss of form and direction came with the injury to Sam.
Nonsense. Lam played an injured player who proved to be a liability v Saints and made the same mistake v Salford. If we lost form due to his injury a big reason for that is he was picked to play and was a passenger. Any fit player would have done a better job.
Tommy who has played 9 for NZ can play hooker just as good as Powell and tackles even harder and we have Summat who wasn’t picked who could play 7. Would that have been Lams preferred line up? No but when your preferred line up had one of its players injured playing him so you can stick with you preferred team is stupid.
Sam wanted to play and
Sammut too was not fully fit. There was little option for changes to the line up other than bringing in one of the young guys or switching somebody to 9 that is not accustomed to playing 9. Each way was a gamble and AL decided to go with Sam as that looked the best option.
Has Manfredi not played more minutes than Sammut this year?
Re: Sam Powell
Posted: Mon Oct 07, 2019 9:33 am
by josie andrews
Low Down Yankee Liar wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2019 10:05 pm
DaveO wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2019 10:06 pm
Low Down Yankee Liar wrote:Sam was obviously injured and did not have full confidence in his wrist but it must of been thought that if we were to progress to Old Trafford then we had no choice but to play him as nobody else at the club can do the job that he does. Its no coincidence that our loss of form and direction came with the injury to Sam.
Nonsense. Lam played an injured player who proved to be a liability v Saints and made the same mistake v Salford. If we lost form due to his injury a big reason for that is he was picked to play and was a passenger. Any fit player would have done a better job.
Tommy who has played 9 for NZ can play hooker just as good as Powell and tackles even harder and we have Summat who wasn’t picked who could play 7. Would that have been Lams preferred line up? No but when your preferred line up had one of its players injured playing him so you can stick with you preferred team is stupid.
Sam wanted to play and
Sammut too was not fully fit. There was little option for changes to the line up other than bringing in one of the young guys or switching somebody to 9 that is not accustomed to playing 9. Each way was a gamble and AL decided to go with Sam as that looked the best option.
Yes he was & he has been fit for a while. He’s flying out to play for Malta this week.
Re: Sam Powell
Posted: Mon Oct 07, 2019 1:25 pm
by nathan_rugby
Levrier wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2019 10:39 pm
Time to stick my head over the parapet. For me the change in Sam Powell has been one of the great plusses of this season. His solidity in defence and his improvement going forward has made him on of our stand out players this season. Having said that there is no way that he should have been playing last week or this. It is the coaches job to tell pig headed players that they will not be considered. If that meant that Amir was brought in then very well but Tommy could have played hooker and we could have covered the halves with SOL or even Hankinson who has played there or even brought Smith in. At the end of the day Powell was not fit and when Tommy went off we had no plan B.
Hankinson to the halves!
That's another one to the list.
Re: Sam Powell
Posted: Mon Oct 07, 2019 3:23 pm
by old hooker
nathan_rugby wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 1:25 pm
Levrier wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2019 10:39 pm
Time to stick my head over the parapet. For me the change in Sam Powell has been one of the great plusses of this season. His solidity in defence and his improvement going forward has made him on of our stand out players this season. Having said that there is no way that he should have been playing last week or this. It is the coaches job to tell pig headed players that they will not be considered. If that meant that Amir was brought in then very well but Tommy could have played hooker and we could have covered the halves with SOL or even Hankinson who has played there or even brought Smith in. At the end of the day Powell was not fit and when Tommy went off we had no plan B.
Hankinson to the halves!
That's another one to the list.
You wouldnt credit it would you ?
Re: Sam Powell
Posted: Mon Oct 07, 2019 6:39 pm
by Levrier
Except that was exactly what was said when we signed him and he covered that position a few times when other players went off. Perhaps you will start ranting about man never flying next because that has already happened as well.
