Suzieb wrote: ↑Sat Mar 25, 2023 7:19 am
Why does mp keep changing the team we are only 6 games into the season and we should not be resting players it’s quite obvious that Mago cust Ellis are not good enough throw in KPP who’s head seems to be somewhere else and we do have problems but rotating these players who are not good enough is not the answer as someone else said we did look better with french at 1 and field at 6 but the rest I do not know Salford threw the ball about and we’re unlucky to lose but for French they would of won
Because if you want your squad to be able to compete when we pick up the odd injury, we need players to have been playing games. You also need to keep players on their toes. I'm sure Peet could give you a huge, detailed explanation why you can't play the same 17 every week
Don’t think other teams are changing it around as much but even if they are the problem is more basic and that is Peet doesn’t seem to want to believe the evidence before his eyes. Let’s see if he reverts to a similar starting line up on Thursday with Powell at 9 , Cust at 6 and Field at 1. It’s pretty obvious to all that Powell is not good at 9 and Cust isn’t cutting it at 6 but will he have the guts to change it around from the start? Or will he keep persisting with a set up that is not working?
There is the old saying that “the definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results” so it was encouraging to see him acknowledge things weren’t working in the Salford game but the problems aren’t new so will he make a more fundamental change to the team?
If you read Matty Peet's body language and listen carefully to his replies, he clearly "gets it" imo.
He realises that this competition is all about the back end. All the initial rounds are a rehearsal for the knockout competition that starts in Sept. All a teams needs to do is make sure they are there or thereabouts in the table before then.
He is clearly trying different players out in different positions to try and work out his best side.
I suspect he knows it's French at 1, Field at 6. The hooker role is up for grabs.
All listen carefully sometimes we have singleton and Byrne as starting props sometimes we have havard and cooper as starting props sometimes we have Farrell and isa as second row sometimes we have Farrell and KPP in the second row sometimes Mago is on the bench sometimes he’s not in games sometimes we switch field and french Ellis is allways on the bench sometimes we switch Powell and Oneil and sometimes we sub cust does this sound like a settled team I am totally confused???????
Suzieb wrote: ↑Sat Mar 25, 2023 7:19 am
Why does mp keep changing the team we are only 6 games into the season and we should not be resting players it’s quite obvious that Mago cust Ellis are not good enough throw in KPP who’s head seems to be somewhere else and we do have problems but rotating these players who are not good enough is not the answer as someone else said we did look better with french at 1 and field at 6 but the rest I do not know Salford threw the ball about and we’re unlucky to lose but for French they would of won
Because if you want your squad to be able to compete when we pick up the odd injury, we need players to have been playing games. You also need to keep players on their toes. I'm sure Peet could give you a huge, detailed explanation why you can't play the same 17 every week
Don’t think other teams are changing it around as much but even if they are the problem is more basic and that is Peet doesn’t seem to want to believe the evidence before his eyes. Let’s see if he reverts to a similar starting line up on Thursday with Powell at 9 , Cust at 6 and Field at 1. It’s pretty obvious to all that Powell is not good at 9 and Cust isn’t cutting it at 6 but will he have the guts to change it around from the start? Or will he keep persisting with a set up that is not working?
There is the old saying that “the definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results” so it was encouraging to see him acknowledge things weren’t working in the Salford game but the problems aren’t new so will he make a more fundamental change to the team?
When he was on the field we were winning, when he was off we went 8 points behind, and with him back on the field we went on to win. Just saying.
Suzieb wrote: ↑Sun Mar 26, 2023 5:17 pm
All listen carefully sometimes we have singleton and Byrne as starting props sometimes we have havard and cooper as starting props sometimes we have Farrell and isa as second row sometimes we have Farrell and KPP in the second row sometimes Mago is on the bench sometimes he’s not in games sometimes we switch field and french Ellis is allways on the bench sometimes we switch Powell and Oneil and sometimes we sub cust does this sound like a settled team I am totally confused???????
Sometimes we have Suzie posting and Sometimes we have Suzies husband, we are all confused
Because if you want your squad to be able to compete when we pick up the odd injury, we need players to have been playing games. You also need to keep players on their toes. I'm sure Peet could give you a huge, detailed explanation why you can't play the same 17 every week
Don’t think other teams are changing it around as much but even if they are the problem is more basic and that is Peet doesn’t seem to want to believe the evidence before his eyes. Let’s see if he reverts to a similar starting line up on Thursday with Powell at 9 , Cust at 6 and Field at 1. It’s pretty obvious to all that Powell is not good at 9 and Cust isn’t cutting it at 6 but will he have the guts to change it around from the start? Or will he keep persisting with a set up that is not working?
There is the old saying that “the definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results” so it was encouraging to see him acknowledge things weren’t working in the Salford game but the problems aren’t new so will he make a more fundamental change to the team?
When he was on the field we were winning, when he was off we went 8 points behind, and with him back on the field we went on to win. Just saying.
When he came on the second time, he went to 13 not 9. Just saying. Other changes were also made i.e. Cust off, Field to 6. Just saying that as well!
The idea Powell coming on at 13 was a game changer given we had two players in O'Neil and Field doing better jobs at 9 & 6 than Powell and Cust were is not credible.
Don’t think other teams are changing it around as much but even if they are the problem is more basic and that is Peet doesn’t seem to want to believe the evidence before his eyes. Let’s see if he reverts to a similar starting line up on Thursday with Powell at 9 , Cust at 6 and Field at 1. It’s pretty obvious to all that Powell is not good at 9 and Cust isn’t cutting it at 6 but will he have the guts to change it around from the start? Or will he keep persisting with a set up that is not working?
There is the old saying that “the definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results” so it was encouraging to see him acknowledge things weren’t working in the Salford game but the problems aren’t new so will he make a more fundamental change to the team?
When he was on the field we were winning, when he was off we went 8 points behind, and with him back on the field we went on to win. Just saying.
When he came on the second time, he went to 13 not 9. Just saying. Other changes were also made i.e. Cust off, Field to 6. Just saying that as well!
The idea Powell coming on at 13 was a game changer given we had two players in O'Neil and Field doing better jobs at 9 & 6 than Powell and Cust were is not credible.
Its true he wasn't on as a 9at the end. But its also true we'd made the other positoinal switches a good 10-15 mnutes before he returned, and an improvement in intensity and our effectiveness only happened after he was back on.
Also, seeing as we played with Powell not at hooker as everyone wants for the vast majority of the match, how come our forwards and back line were not suddenly much better than usual? In fact, things seemed a little worse to me. Why as that?
When he was on the field we were winning, when he was off we went 8 points behind, and with him back on the field we went on to win. Just saying.
When he came on the second time, he went to 13 not 9. Just saying. Other changes were also made i.e. Cust off, Field to 6. Just saying that as well!
The idea Powell coming on at 13 was a game changer given we had two players in O'Neil and Field doing better jobs at 9 & 6 than Powell and Cust were is not credible.
Its true he wasn't on as a 9at the end. But its also true we'd made the other positoinal switches a good 10-15 mnutes before he returned, and an improvement in intensity and our effectiveness only happened after he was back on.
Also, seeing as we played with Powell not at hooker as everyone wants for the vast majority of the match, how come our forwards and back line were not suddenly much better than usual? In fact, things seemed a little worse to me. Why as that?
Our props were awful? Faz had a quiet game until the last 20mins. Harvard is the only one in the pack who put a full 80 mins in really I thought
