Re: craig murdoch/sportstalk : Wed Sep 07, 2011 6:37 am  

The injury situation over the last few years is cobblers.

Yes we have suffered injuries to senior players in key positions and we have tried to use a band-aid by shuffling the rest of the senior squad around to cover.

Other teams such as Leeds, Saints & Wigan have also suffered similar injury crises but have managed to solve theirs by bringing young players through and pitching them in to 1st team rugby. Why could they manage it and not us? Agar was ultimately responsible for all levels of coaching and his player development was found to be sadly lacking.

Re: craig murdoch/sportstalk : Wed Sep 07, 2011 8:51 am  

I'm afraid Doc lost a lot of credibility tonight with his biased ranting. I particularly liked the bit where he said 'if you talk to people in the know within the game they'll tell you how highly rated Rich is'. Really? If he's that highly rated how come he's never been mentioned for any other SL job (other than Wakefield). He also needs to be careful with his criticism of Adam Pearson for 'listening to the fans too much'. Adam has got rid because his crowds are down 3,000 on average and the team he's bought is going to finish below halfway.

I would say those are fair enough reasons to make a change, especially when he's just paid quite a lot of money to buy the club!

Re: craig murdoch/sportstalk : Wed Sep 07, 2011 8:58 am  

carl_spackler wrote:

Murdock's closing comments about not giving in to fan threats of not buying passes, Agar's worth the risk of perseverance because Hull fans are loyal and will come and watch if we're winning: Is it just me or is that very close to the old board's perceived stance of treating us with disdain because we'll turn up and pump money in regardless?

Another "Doc" classic. He managed the quickest contradiction in broadcasting history. "FC fans are the loyalist in the game, and will turn up if the team are winning". Surely, by definition, "loyal" fans turn up regardless of form?

Re: craig murdoch/sportstalk : Wed Sep 07, 2011 9:08 am  

SirStan wrote:

Another "Doc" classic. He managed the quickest contradiction in broadcasting history. "FC fans are the loyalist in the game, and will turn up if the team are winning". Surely, by definition, "loyal" fans turn up regardless of form?

FYI, it was not about form or winning games.

It was about our massive club consistently showing a lack of ambition at board level, backing a coach who was unfit for purpose because he was cheap, spoon feeding it's fans the same crap year on year hoping that they would eventually swallow it, talking to it's fans like primary school children almost to the point of disdain and actually boring us all on matchdays etc.. etc...

I'm sure you wouldn't understand because your mighty club is the best supported in world sport !

Re: craig murdoch/sportstalk : Wed Sep 07, 2011 9:16 am  

thehullwhitestar wrote:

FYI, it was not about form or winning games.

It was about our massive club consistently showing a lack of ambition at board level, backing a coach who was unfit for purpose because he was cheap, spoon feeding it's fans the same crap year on year hoping that they would eventually swallow it, talking to it's fans like primary school children almost to the point of disdain and actually boring us all on matchdays etc.. etc...

I'm sure you wouldn't understand because your mighty club is the best supported in world sport !

FYI this wasn't a dick measuring competition, but you chose to make it that. I was merely contributing the the Murdock thread with more of his ramblings. You chose (as per usual) to bring another club into it. Grow up child.

Re: craig murdoch/sportstalk : Wed Sep 07, 2011 9:19 am  

SirStan wrote:

FYI this wasn't a dick measuring competition, but you chose to make it that. I was merely contributing the the Murdock thread with more of his ramblings. You chose (as per usual) to bring another club into it. Grow up child.

Go back to your own mighty dobbins forum then you poor little bandwagon jumping fool !!

Re: craig murdoch/sportstalk : Wed Sep 07, 2011 9:23 am  

thehullwhitestar wrote:

Go back to your own mighty dobbins forum then you poor little bandwagon jumping fool !!

That's right. I registered on here 15 months prior to Rovers joining SL, just in case there was a chance!

Re: craig murdoch/sportstalk : Wed Sep 07, 2011 9:25 am  

SirStan wrote:

That's right. I registered on here 15 months prior to Rovers joining SL, just in case there was a chance!

Re: craig murdoch/sportstalk : Wed Sep 07, 2011 9:44 am  

thehullwhitestar wrote:

:KATA:

Rather interesting response. I notice you registered on here approx 1 week after winning the Challenge Cup. Coincidence, or just a passing bandwagon?

Re: craig murdoch/sportstalk : Wed Sep 07, 2011 9:48 am  

SirStan wrote:

Another "Doc" classic. He managed the quickest contradiction in broadcasting history. "FC fans are the loyalist in the game, and will turn up if the team are winning". Surely, by definition, "loyal" fans turn up regardless of form?

He managed a fair few contradictions, I have no problem with his opinion on Agar but he kept losing it when any-one offered a different opinion