Re: Hull KR Match Thread : Mon Feb 20, 2012 4:31 pm  

When you brought Wheeler on it should have been for Wellens, with Lance H, going to fullback.

Re: Hull KR Match Thread : Mon Feb 20, 2012 4:33 pm  

Billinge_Lump wrote:

Drop Gardner for Hohaia and put Makinson on the wing and I'd go with that 17 as our strongest.

I can live with that too.

I've only seen Lance once at FB and for me he was a bit too much running around but going nowhere, maybe he's been better in other matches I've not seen.

Re: Hull KR Match Thread : Mon Feb 20, 2012 5:57 pm  

Mugwump wrote:

I think a lot our defensive problems stem from the scrum half position. A good half isn't only the playmaker and place kicker - he also sets the defensive pattern and controls the line.

Too many people are confusing Lomax's - admittedly good - attacking performances at scrum half with being a good scrum half.

I think maybe in the 60s and 70s the scrumhalf organised the defence while playing in the sweeper postion but that's not the case now and no way is lomax at fault for the team not being able to tackle.

Re: Hull KR Match Thread : Mon Feb 20, 2012 6:12 pm  

For what its worth it seemed fairly simple to me why we nearly lost yesterday. An inability to keep KR away from our line. We gave way too many penalties away, along with stupid errors all that did was give away field position. There isnt a team in the competition - let alone a big side like Hull KR - who are not going to score points against you given the amount of field position.

Cut out the errors and Hull KR never looked like scoring long distance points - we then score 30 points and its an easy win.

Yes the defence on our line - if improved - could still have taken us home but dont underestimate how well KR played when they were 20 m from our line, their regular half backs could have done no better and they have some big forwards who from that distance who will damage you.

So its not all doom and gloom, Foster missed 4 conversions - 2 of which hit the posts. We scored 7 tries to 6 and the penalty count was something like 9 -2 against us. We havent won there in the league for about 5 years.

Improvements to be made - certainly - the end of the world and our chances up in smoke for this year - not yet by a long chalk.

Re: Hull KR Match Thread : Mon Feb 20, 2012 6:26 pm  

St. Etrigan wrote:

For what its worth it seemed fairly simple to me why we nearly lost yesterday. An inability to keep KR away from our line. We gave way too many penalties away, along with stupid errors all that did was give away field position. There isnt a team in the competition - let alone a big side like Hull KR - who are not going to score points against you given the amount of field position.

Cut out the errors and Hull KR never looked like scoring long distance points - we then score 30 points and its an easy win.

Yes the defence on our line - if improved - could still have taken us home but dont underestimate how well KR played when they were 20 m from our line, their regular half backs could have done no better and they have some big forwards who from that distance who will damage you.

So its not all doom and gloom, Foster missed 4 conversions - 2 of which hit the posts. We scored 7 tries to 6 and the penalty count was something like 9 -2 against us. We havent won there in the league for about 5 years.

Improvements to be made - certainly - the end of the world and our chances up in smoke for this year - not yet by a long chalk.

I think that's fair.

I noticed in the opening two games that we made some really poor individual errors - including giving away sloppy penalties and uncharacteristically dropping the ball. We just look like a side that's finding it's feet at the moment and the lack of pre-season games and rotation in the side means we haven't really found any rhythm yet. We've done well to remain unbeaten but I imagine our side will need to settle soon providing we don't pick up too many injuries as our fixtures become tougher.

Re: Hull KR Match Thread : Mon Feb 20, 2012 9:28 pm  

Blobbynator wrote:

I think that's fair.

I noticed in the opening two games that we made some really poor individual errors - including giving away sloppy penalties and uncharacteristically dropping the ball. We just look like a side that's finding it's feet at the moment and the lack of pre-season games and rotation in the side means we haven't really found any rhythm yet. We've done well to remain unbeaten but I imagine our side will need to settle soon providing we don't pick up too many injuries as our fixtures become tougher.

I think it will settle somewhat now, barring injury. Royce wanted all to have a run out. That's been done so now he has seen them all and tried a few things, he can start to pick the style he wants.

I'm guessing the back on the bench is here to stay, so for me this is a role for a utility player not a winger. If meli is going to play and given his try scoring record that is more than likey, Wheeler / Wellens or Lance would fit perfectly into this and not have to spend all but 5 mins on the bench and could be brought on and off for various roles.

Re: Hull KR Match Thread : Mon Feb 20, 2012 9:46 pm  

bewareshadows wrote:

I think it will settle somewhat now, barring injury. Royce wanted all to have a run out. That's been done so now he has seen them all and tried a few things, he can start to pick the style he wants.

I'm guessing the back on the bench is here to stay, so for me this is a role for a utility player not a winger. If meli is going to play and given his try scoring record that is more than likey, Wheeler / Wellens or Lance would fit perfectly into this and not have to spend all but 5 mins on the bench and could be brought on and off for various roles.

I wouldn't fancy wello as our sub that never comes on. What if we had to put him on in the centre or halfback!

Re: Hull KR Match Thread : Mon Feb 20, 2012 10:24 pm  

St pete wrote:

I wouldn't fancy wello as our sub that never comes on. What if we had to put him on in the centre or halfback!

There would be no need to have him at half back in my line up, he could do a job at centre but there are option there too, I'm not saying he would be back on the bench every week, just some weeks, it depends on our injury list. The weakest back line where he would be on the bench would be with Meli and Lance injured. even in this line up if you don't want him at centre there are options. If we lost any more backs, then Wellens would slot into FB.

Makinson
Ade
Shenton
Wheeler
Foster
Lomax
Gaskell

if you lose a centre, then Wellens goes to FB.
if you lose a half back, then wellens goes to FB, makinson to centre, Wheeler to half back.

Re: Hull KR Match Thread : Tue Feb 21, 2012 12:19 am  

St pete wrote:

I think maybe in the 60s and 70s the scrumhalf organised the defence while playing in the sweeper postion but that's not the case now and no way is lomax at fault for the team not being able to tackle.

The scrum-half has pretty much always been heavily involved with marshalling the defence (both Allan Langer and Andrew Johns were excellent defensive organisers). It's true that some are more vociferous than others, and, yes, duties tend to be shared these days between the loose-forward, hooker and sometimes full-back (who has a better view) - but somebody must do it.

Conceding 30 odd easy points against modest opposition with a near full-strength side suggests poor organisation, leadership and/or lack of motivation. Not surprising given that Hohaia's hardly had enough time to learn his team-mates' names, Lomax isn't a scrum half and Wilkin - whilst many things - has never possessed the leadership skills of a Scully or a Joynt.

Re: Hull KR Match Thread : Tue Feb 21, 2012 12:20 am  

You could always buy Richie Mathers, by all accounts he never shuts up