: Fri Jul 24, 2009 5:10 pm  

downtheante wrote:

But he is always fit....

He's rarely injured, but he's far from fit!

Re: what would be your team for sat? : Fri Jul 24, 2009 6:56 pm  

danodellhull wrote:

just interested to see what people would choose.
mine would be...

Tansey
Raynor
Yeaman
Hall
Calderwood
R Horne
Berrigan
Cordoba
Lee
Radford
Burnett
Tickle
Whiting

Houghton
Manu
Moa
King

This was quite easy i though to be honest when choosing and the bench actually looks like it might have more impact then normal in my opinion with the aggression of the forwards and houghtons pace and speed around the ruck.

When I look at this side on paper it looks like a decent side and how anyone can say that a rovers win is a certainty is beyond me. I think it will be a really tight game and I wouldn't put money on either team. Yes FC have had a disappoiting season so far but the form book goes out of the window at every derby. I do think FC are light in the props though and this may be the difference. Radford and Cordoba will have to be on top of their game I think. Hope not though

Re: what would be your team for sat? : Fri Jul 24, 2009 7:01 pm  

hullkr14 wrote:

When I look at this side on paper it looks like a decent side and how anyone can say that a rovers win is a certainty is beyond me.

Perhaps because we have been watching the team play week in week out since February and "the game isn't played on paper".

hullkr14 wrote:

I do think FC are light in the props though and this may be the difference.

With our 4 first choice props unavailable, it's hardly rocket science to work that one out.

Re: what would be your team for sat? : Fri Jul 24, 2009 7:04 pm  

Mrs Barista wrote:

Perhaps because we have been watching the team play week in week out since February and "the game isn't played on paper".


With our 4 first choice props unavailable, it's hardly rocket science to work that one out.

Yeah thanks for that. But I still think it will be a close game.

: Fri Jul 24, 2009 7:20 pm  

Can I just state this now, that Agar WILL NOT play Whiting at loose man. Never ever.

Has he ever not played a second rower there?

: Fri Jul 24, 2009 10:06 pm  

Wellsy13 wrote:

Can I just state this now, that Agar WILL NOT play Whiting at loose man. Never ever.

Has he ever not played a second rower there?

Washbrook

: Sat Jul 25, 2009 1:15 am  

id rather play king at 7 than thorman....

: Sat Jul 25, 2009 6:26 am  

Uncle Junior wrote:

He's rarely injured, but he's far from fit!

I did't mean "attractive"

: Sat Jul 25, 2009 9:18 am  

FC Callum wrote:

Washbrook

When? As far as I can remember, whenever Washbrook was fit he's been either at Stand-Off or on the bench.
The only Loose-Forwards that have started for us under Agar have been Radford and Tickle, but Lee has played there during the game when interchanged.

: Sat Jul 25, 2009 9:22 am  

Panda92 wrote:

When? As far as I can remember, whenever Washbrook was fit he's been either at Stand-Off or on the bench.
The only Loose-Forwards that have started for us under Agar have been Radford and Tickle, but Lee has played there during the game when interchanged.

As has Berrigan