O’Loughlin

[ancientnloyal]

I’m coming to the mind set that Sean O’ is hampering our substitute usage. With fewer subs this year we need a 13 who stays on the pitch longer, ie 80 mins. Props are playing longer and obviously our fitness is quite bad now Bitcon has departed.

I can’t see why we put up with it. Maybe it’s time to move on. I don’t buy the argument, yet, that we are better off with him even if it’s for 2 minutes a game.

[medlocke]

I can't believe theres a few on rlfans hoping that he will go round for 1 or maybe even 2 seasons, It just doesn't make sense, Plays limited minutes per game and needs resting half the season, He should have bowed out on a high at the end of last season

[Caboosegg]

Hasnt he played more minutes this season tgat he did last already

[medlocke]

Hasnt he played more minutes this season tgat he did last already

And has his influence on those games been successful, Also how many weeks/months of rest is he going to need to get over it?

[Firestarter]

Hes definately stuggled this season...... I personally think back rowers should be able to play the full 80

[EagleEyePie]

Lockers has already had several outstanding games this year and played long minutes too. He was probably the best player on the pitch in the World Club Challenge. That's why he's still considered a regular in the side.

It's no secret that he will miss games throughout the year due to injury and that sometimes he'll have to be spelled, however, a 13 has more in common with props than the second row these days. Generally the second row will play 80 minutes each and those in the middle will get spelled, so there's nothing wrong with O'Loughlin not playing the 80 minutes when pretty much everyone in the middle gets spelled.

His fitness and injury problems are more of an issue because we don't have an 80 minute hooker who is good enough. Leuluai has to be our starting 9 now but it means Shorrocks off the bench which reduces our forwards options. Then we've got players like Clubb who barely last a game without getting injured and usually at least one prop who is out of form or a youngster. It increases the risk of being short on numbers during a game.

However, I'm glad O'Loughlin is still in the side. Someone who can be hugely influential and a match winner and can offer at least 40 minutes a game is good enough in my opinion.

[DaveO]

Lockers has already had several outstanding games this year and played long minutes too. He was probably the best player on the pitch in the World Club Challenge. That's why he's still considered a regular in the side.

It's no secret that he will miss games throughout the year due to injury and that sometimes he'll have to be spelled, however, a 13 has more in common with props than the second row these days. Generally the second row will play 80 minutes each and those in the middle will get spelled, so there's nothing wrong with O'Loughlin not playing the 80 minutes when pretty much everyone in the middle gets spelled.

His fitness and injury problems are more of an issue because we don't have an 80 minute hooker who is good enough. Leuluai has to be our starting 9 now but it means Shorrocks off the bench which reduces our forwards options. Then we've got players like Clubb who barely last a game without getting injured and usually at least one prop who is out of form or a youngster. It increases the risk of being short on numbers during a game.

However, I'm glad O'Loughlin is still in the side. Someone who can be hugely influential and a match winner and can offer at least 40 minutes a game is good enough in my opinion.

The bits of your post I put in bold sum up the issues with some players at the club. There are too many compromises being made. On the back of this season so far Leuluai, O'Loughlin and even Clubb have gone around once too often. The problem is we need their experience due to inadequacies in the rest of the squad but we really should not be relying in these particular players to provide this experience (nor should we be so reliant on them particular Lockers for leadership). The reason we are is because the club has not had a succession policy in place for these players.

In the 80's and 90's we shipped out players like Hanley well before they got to the retirement stage. I can remember one of my favorite players, Ian Potter, a hard nas nails forward capped for GB not being given a new contract at the ripe old age of 31.

Now we seem destined ot cling on to any experience we have too long because we either can't afford or have no idea how to find suitable replacements (or both).

[nathan_rugby]

Whilst O'Loughlin may be the last of a dying breed of ball playing 13s, there does not seem to have been any succession plan at all, regardless of whether we want a ball playing 13 or just another second row.

Over the years we have seen:

- Tomkins cover 13 (Probably a good candidate based on his pre-union days)
- Farrell - Too good as left 2nd row to play loose and doesn't have the ball skills to play 13
- Bateman - Very good candidate but doesn't have the ball skills but irrelevant as now left
- Isa - Would be a small second rower playing 13.
- Hamlin - Would be a small second rower playing 13

[No straw damn us]

I would manage Lockers game time by playing him as a ball playing prop, as Cuthbertson was/is at Leeds and gradually bring Morgan Smithies into the team at loose forward.

[josie andrews]

I would manage Lockers game time by playing him as a ball playing prop, as Cuthbertson was/is at Leeds and gradually bring Morgan Smithies into the team at loose forward.

Wasn’t he supposed to move to prop a couple of years ago?

I seem to remember it had been suggested & he did play a few games there, but then he moved back to LF, whether because we hadn’t got a suitable replacement or not I just can’t seem to remember