Re: 19 for HKR : Fri Jun 29, 2012 1:39 pm  

No1 Saint wrote:

What will be interesting is IF he does rip it up will he still drop out for Lance or will Lance have to warm the bench?

I think the majority would want that scenario. With Lance on the bench, coming on in the 2 nd half at 9 with Roby having another spell at 13.

Re: 19 for HKR : Fri Jun 29, 2012 3:17 pm  

Judder Man wrote:

I think the majority would want that scenario. With Lance on the bench, coming on in the 2 nd half at 9 with Roby having another spell at 13.

What do you think roby at 13 will offer?

Re: 19 for HKR : Fri Jun 29, 2012 3:24 pm  

St pete wrote:

What do you think roby at 13 will offer?

As I mentioned elsewhere,when Robes and Lance were in the pack together, there was a lot more energy going forward.
As when we had Moore last year, they can split the dummy half responsibilty which mixes things up a little.

Re: 19 for HKR : Fri Jun 29, 2012 5:24 pm  

Offside Monkey wrote:

As I mentioned elsewhere,when Robes and Lance were in the pack together, there was a lot more energy going forward.
As when we had Moore last year, they can split the dummy half responsibilty which mixes things up a little.

If lance wasn't here would you e saying play roby at 13 for spells?

It seems to me, people are just looking to fit lance in the 17. We shouldn't be trying just to get him in the 17 just because he's our big name signing.

IMO if he don't play fullback, he don't play at all.

Robes main weapon is his running from dummy half, if we put lance at hooker and roby at 13 then IMO roby is wasted. Roby is a hooker and that's it.

Re: 19 for HKR : Fri Jun 29, 2012 6:09 pm  

St pete wrote:

If lance wasn't here would you e saying play roby at 13?

No. Your points are quite valid, but Lance can contribute around that area.

Re: 19 for HKR : Fri Jun 29, 2012 6:34 pm  

BackrowSaint wrote:

I hope Gaskell has a stormer.

Me too. I really want this kid to succeed at Saints.

Re: 19 for HKR : Fri Jun 29, 2012 7:15 pm  

St pete wrote:

If lance wasn't here would you e saying play roby at 13 for spells?

It seems to me, people are just looking to fit lance in the 17. We shouldn't be trying just to get him in the 17 just because he's our big name signing.

IMO if he don't play fullback, he don't play at all.

Robes main weapon is his running from dummy half, if we put lance at hooker and roby at 13 then IMO roby is wasted. Roby is a hooker and that's it.

I would like to see Roby and Lance sharing the match time. We cannot keep playing Roby week in week out for 80 minutes with his style of play. I would prefer to see us reducing his game time, particualrly in games where we are comfortable, and prolong his career.

Re: 19 for HKR : Fri Jun 29, 2012 9:06 pm  

SomersetSaint wrote:

I would like to see Roby and Lance sharing the match time. We cannot keep playing Roby week in week out for 80 minutes with his style of play. I would prefer to see us reducing his game time, particualrly in games where we are comfortable, and prolong his career.

We should be looking for a 2nd hooker then if that's how you see it but why lancd there? Why not lomax?

It's because we are trying to fit lance in but it's wrong!

Re: 19 for HKR : Fri Jun 29, 2012 9:09 pm  

This post is dedicated to SAINTS77777

Like I said, I got the team spot on and as I said, lance was out

Re: 19 for HKR : Fri Jun 29, 2012 10:34 pm  

Gaskell looked overwhelmed tonight. I hope he was just being eased back into the side, but very few plays went through him, apart from kicks. He was defending in the left centre position all game, with Jones moving inside him.