inifselected

In. 

 

We are staying up.

Inifselected

Spaznob plus Spaznob's mate (LostockTerror) inifselected.

In

Two more

IN

These have won 3 lost 3

If everyone is available, we need to go with the original 8 tbh.

Some strange results the other night.  Farnworth Reds who bummed us 21-10 the other week lost 8-3, and that gash team we raped last week narrowly lost 11-10.

 

Fair point from Pabbers re selection. We'll be poorer for it though.

I see what your saying, but, lostock terror has turned up every week since week two and what's more he has also paid every week since week two. That means he's played as many games as others and has put more in the pot.

 

He's also now a member of WW's so for me heisin.

Can we have 4 subs ???

Or a rotation system?

 

People would only miss one game in nine then. If someone isnt available one week then that can be their week out of the side.

Edited October 18, 201312 yr by olispence

I see what your saying, but, lostock terror has turned up every week since week two and what's more he has also paid every week since week two. That means he's played as many games as others and has put more in the pot.

 

He's also now a member of WW's so for me heisin.

 

I fully agree with this.

 

Can we have 4 subs ???

 

No, maximum is 8, we're only just managing with 3 subs, 2 is better in all honesty.

 

Or a rotation system?

 

People would only miss one game in nine then. If someone isnt available one week then that can be their week out of the side.

 

A good idea Oliver.

Edited October 18, 201312 yr by Ryan

That'll work. I'll miss this week.

I fully agree with this.

 

 

No, maximum is 8, we're only just managing with 3 subs, 2 is better in all honesty.

 

 

A good idea Oliver.

 

I agree 2 is actually better than 3.

 

They're short games as it is.  With 3 subs then you end up with some playing less than half a game.

 

Edit:  Oh, and Baz, if there's one player who's MUST play each game, then that's you.

 

Don't know what the solution is here though.  Should we appoint someone to be in charge of team selection? I'd happily vote for someone and would be happy with their selections (well, maybe not always but I'd certainly never whinge about them  ).

 

Seeing as Baz kicked the whole thing off and got it going he'd get my vote

Edited October 18, 201312 yr by DazBob

When everyone is fit, I think its Daz's mate that should drop out, no offence to him, as he is belting player.

You could just keep it to Bolton fans only.

When everyone is fit, I think its Daz's mate that should drop out, no offence to him, as he is belting player.

 

On the grounds that he's newest to the forum and not part of any quiche?  Bit harsh that.

A lot harsh.

 

Lostock's as said above put more in than others.

I agree 2 is actually better than 3.

 

They're short games as it is.  With 3 subs then you end up with some playing less than half a game.

 

Yep, and with bringing 3 on at once, it completely changes the game, when we did it Wednesday, we conceded 3 in quick succession.

 

The 2 on 2 off worked very well for us.

 

The first time in wways history, with have to many committed players 

I think we should call an AGM

On the grounds that he's newest to the forum and not part of any quiche?  Bit harsh that.

 

Not at all, just dont the fact that he was an "if needed" player.

Was he?

Im not sure we will have this problem though, bound to get drop outs.

Not at all, just dont the fact that he was an "if needed" player.

 

I don't think we should be dropping anyone

 

We just need to use the rotation system

 

As the weeks go on, people will need to drop out here and there anyway

 

I can bet my last pound, we'll be struggling for player at some point

 

And we wouldn't want Lostock being snapped up by anyone else