As soon as I saw the team sheet, I knew BJB would be unused. Such a stupid decision. Played saints a man down from the start.

Completely forgot about that.

It's daft and it's indefensible.

So here they come .....

Well, I think Achurch was a late withdrawal so BJB wasn't meant to play anyway.

Stop being sensible, an agenda needs to be followed.

The only time you would select a back of that nature on the bench is ala graham murray with st hilaire/harris, when you can move the existing 1 up into standoff.

Otherwise you stick to engine room players. A utility hooker/half back or the standard 4 forwards.

I can't say I read or watch much of Mcdermott's aftermatch interviews but is no one pulling him up and asking for an explanation on these unused subs?

Clarkson was 18th man and brought in late.

I can kind of understand McDermott with this one. With the tactics played, him coming on wouldn't have made a difference there.

It was the tactics that was wrong.

Is that the same achurch that went unused in the game at huddersfield?

That tight, nip and tuck arm wrestle where people said mcdermott didn't use achurch because he didn't trust him?

Yeah, i'm sure if he was able to select achurch, leeds wouldn't have had an unused sub. Really.

Achurch.... WAS....MEANT...TO... PLAY. He had to withdraw close to kick off because of an injury. BJB was the only other fit senior player available at the time.

What?

Are you saying mcdermott selected BJB as part of a gameplan, then didn't play to that gameplan?

Is that the same achurch that was an unused sub in a similiar contest at huddersfield?

I'm sure he ''WAS...MEANT....TO...PLAY'' in that game as well.

JJB apparently tore his bicep in the 15th minute. That's the point where BJB should have come on to centre and Ward switched to the pack. Instead we let an injured player stay on. BM bigging him up post-match for his toughness and heart. That's not in question, but the wisdom is.