Re: Stuart Howarth : Fri Jan 09, 2015 8:36 am
Offside Monkey wrote:
You are mistaken. Adamson was signed by the board.
Adamson was not a bad player at all, but Hanley chose point blank not to play him after the first couple of games. I hypothesise that it was to show who was in charge of his squad.
People always call Adamson as a poor player, but he wasn't. He did okay if his 3 games before he was dropped. I went to a lot of reserve games that year and he was always head and shoulders above the rest, but NEVER ever got picked for first team duty, despite us having Paul Davison stinking up the pack (remember him, even the Saints fans booed him he was that crap).
Hanley had his plus points, but he was a bloody weirdo at times.
Adamson was not a bad player at all, but Hanley chose point blank not to play him after the first couple of games. I hypothesise that it was to show who was in charge of his squad.
People always call Adamson as a poor player, but he wasn't. He did okay if his 3 games before he was dropped. I went to a lot of reserve games that year and he was always head and shoulders above the rest, but NEVER ever got picked for first team duty, despite us having Paul Davison stinking up the pack (remember him, even the Saints fans booed him he was that crap).
Hanley had his plus points, but he was a bloody weirdo at times.
Indeed. Phil Adamson was never as good as his brother, but he had a perfectly good reputation in the NRL (or ARL as it was then). He made a few handling errors in his first couple of games then never got a look in after that.
People often talk about Trindall as if he was rubbish, too. He wasn't - in fact he was a very talented half-back. His problem was that he was a total cretin and had fallen out with the squad by the time we played our first competitive game of the season. All a result of Hanley's inexplicable dislike of Tommy Martyn. Trindall was a terrible signing, but not a terrible player by any means.
