Re: 17 for Salford.. : Sun Jan 29, 2012 9:29 pm  

binks wrote:

Also arundel played in his first full SL season last year and got a knights place
But what do they know about rugby?

How very dare you use facts to prove Fully wrong.

Re: 17 for Salford.. : Sun Jan 29, 2012 9:39 pm  

binks wrote:

How very dare you use fact to prove Fully wrong.

Also arundel played in his first full SL season last year and got a knights place
But what do they know about rugby?

McGoldrick can use a friendly against his suspension.

Ergo, Hull KR and today's friendly count - suspension over.

He played his first full SL season but that doesn't necessarily counter his size. Granted he got a Knight's place but tackling defensively he was shocking. I will use the Catalans away game as a prime example. Maybe I'm just comparing him to Shenton who was the opposite: excellent defensively but not a good attacking player.

Re: 17 for Salford.. : Sun Jan 29, 2012 9:49 pm  

you mention Arundel being shocking in defence yet want McGoldrick to play

Re: 17 for Salford.. : Sun Jan 29, 2012 9:54 pm  

This is a team of what we have / what I think Millward will go with. He seems to have taken the king of Cas under his wing so I cant see him not making the 17.

1) Owen
2) Dixon
3) Arundel
4) McGoldrick
5) Griffin
6) Chase
7) Orr
Emmitt
9) Milner
10) Massey
11) Mitchell
12) Ferres
13) Hudson


14) Clark
15) Jones
16) Holmes
17) Nash

I cant see Jackson, Walker, Grehan being "ready" for next saturday.

Re: 17 for Salford.. : Sun Jan 29, 2012 9:59 pm  

Towns88 wrote:

you mention Arundel being shocking in defence yet want McGoldrick to play

Irony

Joe Arundel is the best centre at the club and by some distance.

Re: 17 for Salford.. : Sun Jan 29, 2012 10:05 pm  

Fully wrote:

McGoldrick can use a friendly against his suspension.

Ergo, Hull KR and today's friendly count - suspension over.

He played his first full SL season but that doesn't necessarily counter his size. Granted he got a Knight's place but tackling defensively he was shocking. I will use the Catalans away game as a prime example. Maybe I'm just comparing him to Shenton who was the opposite: excellent defensively but not a good attacking player.

So you want the new boy to start after only 2 weeks at the club over a player in the knights squad ??

He may turn out a good signing but to drop arundel for him now ??

Have you been on the vino tinto

Re: 17 for Salford.. : Sun Jan 29, 2012 10:43 pm  

Personally id love to see John Davies get selected ahead of nash

Re: 17 for Salford.. : Sun Jan 29, 2012 10:55 pm  

Towns88 wrote:

you mention Arundel being shocking in defence yet want McGoldrick to play

McGoldrick is being played in the forwards where he will have the big lads around him. Arundel has the smaller lads around him, there's a massive difference.

As for Grehan, it's not ideal but he's got to play first-team sooner or later and without disrespect to Salford, better to be someone like them than Leeds, Saints, Wigan, Catalans etc.

Re: 17 for Salford.. : Sun Jan 29, 2012 10:59 pm  

Gronk! wrote:

Irony

Joe Arundel is the best centre at the club and by some distance.

Griffin missed less tackles and made more metres than him last season in eight less games for a poor Wakefield side.

I'd hardly say your statement is correct on that basis. Of course, the Cas lad weighting perhaps makes it more biased, though.

Re: 17 for Salford.. : Sun Jan 29, 2012 11:22 pm  

Forwards need to tackle too!!! And McGoldrick is one of, if not, the worst tackler I've ever seen in a Cas shirt!