: Sun Mar 15, 2009 4:49 pm  

Duckman wrote:

I just hope its a good entertaining game with some signs of improvement from the Bulls in terms of creativity.

Sounds like this could actually have been what happened. Was it?

: Sun Mar 15, 2009 4:54 pm  

af wrote:

Sounds like this could actually have been what happened. Was it?

my daughter is there and said that bradford were awful, she used to live in Wibsey and watch them at times,. (shes AN FC FAN BTW) , she said its the worst shes seen on bradford for ages.

: Sun Mar 15, 2009 4:58 pm  

Quincy wrote:

4500 are Hull FC fans.

Don't be stupid.

: Sun Mar 15, 2009 4:58 pm  

HULLMAD wrote:

my daughter is there and said that bradford were awful, she used to live in Wibsey and watch them at times,. (shes AN FC FAN BTW) , she said its the worst shes seen on bradford for ages.

Hull must have been similarly bad for the last 75 mins then. Did she have any comment on that?

: Sun Mar 15, 2009 5:00 pm  

af wrote:

Sounds like this could actually have been what happened. Was it?

No it wasn't we were are shambolic best, IMO the scoreline flatters us Hull looked capable of scoring every time they got near to our line.

: Sun Mar 15, 2009 5:01 pm  

af wrote:

Hull must have been similarly bad for the last 75 mins then. Did she have any comment on that?

what you mean the HULLFC that won.
we won 5 from 5 you got a lucky draw against our neighbours from over in east hull,.

: Sun Mar 15, 2009 5:01 pm  

redeverready wrote:

No it wasn't we were are shambolic best, IMO the scoreline flatters us Hull looked capable of scoring every time they got near to our line.

thats what my daughter said, she said she expected better from the bulls.

: Sun Mar 15, 2009 5:07 pm  

Who should take the blame if the players lack ideas..Pre match SM hinted that we were about to go on a charge and surprise a few people in SL..Well if not now..will it be ever..

: Sun Mar 15, 2009 5:07 pm  

Two things arising from that game -

First, we had two teams that were pretty evenly matched in most departments (more later).

Second, the Bulls will do nothing this year as our half-backs (even though Jeffries played far better than his previous efforts) seem to be a spent force, and this was the obvious difference.

The Bulls still made too many mistakes, but that is not unexpected when you are chasing a game, and have to try to force things, but in general, you would have to say that the pack more than matched Hull's pack, and while they did not beat Hull's pack, it was an entertaining 80 minute contest.

But the one shining beacon in this is why, given that we now obviously realise we need a creative halfback (Bird anyone?) did we lump ourselves with a Jeffries/Deacon partnership for 2009, when it just does not offer enough to be better than most of the other teams. As I keep saying, Jeffries never was a No. 6 yet we are persisting with that, and sadly at the moment Deacon is a busted flush. The things he used to be good at for many years, little dabs through, kicks for touch, into the corners, organising the pack and directing play, seem to be a memory now.

IF we knew we were short of some creativity then why the hell did we not snap up Thorman when he became available/

And therein was the difference. Chris Thorman, esq. Take out his brilliance, creativity and opportunism, pace, and balance, and it is an even game. Swop sides and we win easily. Thorman was majestic.

Sheriffe also proved he can't run, when a ball-carrying Yeaman pulled away from a "chasing" Sheriffe.

Enjoyed the game, loved watching Torman and the excellent Manu, and in general a fair performance by the Bulls. Just baten by the Thorman difference.

: Sun Mar 15, 2009 5:12 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Two things arising from that game -

First, we had two teams that were pretty evenly matched in most departments (more later).

Second, the Bulls will do nothing this year as our half-backs (even though Jeffries played far better than his previous efforts) seem to be a spent force, and this was the obvious difference.

The Bulls still made too many mistakes, but that is not unexpected when you are chasing a game, and have to try to force things, but in general, you would have to say that the pack more than matched Hull's pack, and while they did not beat Hull's pack, it was an entertaining 80 minute contest.

But the one shining beacon in this is why, given that we now obviously realise we need a creative halfback (Bird anyone?) did we lump ourselves with a Jeffries/Deacon partnership for 2009, when it just does not offer enough to be better than most of the other teams. As I keep saying, Jeffries never was a No. 6 yet we are persisting with that, and sadly at the moment Deacon is a busted flush. The things he used to be good at for many years, little dabs through, kicks for touch, into the corners, organising the pack and directing play, seem to be a memory now.

IF we knew we were short of some creativity then why the hell did we not snap up Thorman when he became available/

And therein was the difference. Chris Thorman, esq. Take out his brilliance, creativity and opportunism, pace, and balance, and it is an even game. Swop sides and we win easily. Thorman was majestic.

Sheriffe also proved he can't run, when a ball-carrying Yeaman pulled away from a "chasing" Sheriffe.

Enjoyed the game, loved watching Torman and the excellent Manu, and in general a fair performance by the Bulls. Just baten by the Thorman difference.

good assessment and think thats why HULLFC are playing so well , because we have a decent HALFBACK pairing, well we actually have halfbacks this season who can create.