: Mon Mar 16, 2009 10:03 am  

Big Dave T wrote:

I'd stick with Moa in the 17. The hit on Burgess was just 1 of 5 or 6 crunchers that he put in. Thats the buggest difference between Moa and Hutch, Moa doesnt mind putting his body on the line and looks to dent people, Hutch was just a plodder.

But he doesn't always complete the tackle, much like King is criticised on here for doing. But it doesn't matter, because Moa has already been deemed worthy of the 'god club'.

: Mon Mar 16, 2009 10:04 am  

carl_spackler wrote:

But he doesn't always complete the tackle, much like King is criticised on here for doing. But it doesn't matter, because Moa has already been deemed worthy of the 'god club'.

Didnt see Moa not complete a tackle TBH. He doesnt steam out of the line like King either which is where King goes wrong.

: Mon Mar 16, 2009 10:11 am  

Big Dave T wrote:

Didnt see Moa not complete a tackle TBH. He doesnt steam out of the line like King either which is where King goes wrong.

How about the Burgess hit that started this thread? He creamed Burgess but the ball had already gone and their attack continued, much like King did with Fielden in the opening game. Yet King is berated for trying for the flashy which achieves nothing and Moa is being hailed for his big hit.

And the reason he doesn't steam out of the line is possibly because he isn't yet mobile enough IMO.

It's just the double-standards kicking in again. After 2 games where he's completed less than half an hour in total, he's already a favourite having plaudits thrown at him, when all he's done is look steady with a bit of potential IMO.

: Mon Mar 16, 2009 10:15 am  

carl_spackler wrote:

How about the Burgess hit that started this thread? He creamed Burgess but the ball had already gone and their attack continued, much like King did with Fielden in the opening game. Yet King is berated for trying for the flashy which achieves nothing and Moa is being hailed for his big hit.

And the reason he doesn't steam out of the line is possibly because he isn't yet mobile enough IMO.

It's just the double-standards kicking in again. After 2 games where he's completed less than half an hour in total, he's already a favourite having plaudits thrown at him, when all he's done is look steady with a bit of potential IMO.

He didnt drop off the tackle or mis his man, he smashed his man who offloaded a split second before he did. This isnt a mistake IMO. The other Hull men around Moa then took their own men too and the attack was killed off. All you can do is tackle your opposite man.

Disagree about double standards. Moa looks a real prospect and is nowhere near fit yet. We are joint top unbeaten, think you should just allow people to be a little bit positive and glass half full for once if they want to be.

: Mon Mar 16, 2009 10:24 am  

Big Dave T wrote:

He didnt drop off the tackle or mis his man, he smashed his man who offloaded a split second before he did. This isnt a mistake IMO. The other Hull men around Moa then took their own men too and the attack was killed off. All you can do is tackle your opposite man.

Exactly what King did. I'm not saying Moa should be criticised, I'm simply saying that for one to be criticised and another praised for pretty much doing the same thing is not right.

Big Dave T wrote:

Disagree about double standards. Moa looks a real prospect and is nowhere near fit yet. We are joint top unbeaten, think you should just allow people to be a little bit positive and glass half full for once if they want to be.

I agree Moa is nowhere near fit, which is why I disagree with people saying he should remain in the side. Do you not think it's a double-standard for people to think he deserves to stay in to play 1 15-minute stint instead of having to earn his place in the side through training and academy performances, as is demanded of other players?

I've not seen him this season yet, but Maloney must be either really struggling or else probably feeling a bit mistreated IMO.

: Mon Mar 16, 2009 10:37 am  

carl_spackler wrote:

I agree Moa is nowhere near fit, which is why I disagree with people saying he should remain in the side. Do you not think it's a double-standard for people to think he deserves to stay in to play 1 15-minute stint instead of having to earn his place in the side through training and academy performances, as is demanded of other players?

I've not seen him this season yet, but Maloney must be either really struggling or else probably feeling a bit mistreated IMO.

agar has seen enough of him in training to give him the nod and thats fine for me.

Ive seen Maloney this season and he was worse than one of our academy props. He knows he needs to develop his game to make it, at the minite Moa is raw but still offers a lot more than Maloney. Moa is likely to be the one that misses out though when Lauaki gets here.

: Mon Mar 16, 2009 10:48 am  

Big Dave T wrote:

agar has seen enough of him in training to give him the nod and thats fine for me.

Ive seen Maloney this season and he was worse than one of our academy props. He knows he needs to develop his game to make it, at the minite Moa is raw but still offers a lot more than Maloney. Moa is likely to be the one that misses out though when Lauaki gets here.

I'm afraid this is where i take issue with overseas players. Moa obviously has potential but i don't see it as a British clubs responsibility to develop it, particularly at the expense of a British player with equally as much untapped potential.

: Mon Mar 16, 2009 10:53 am  

Gordon Gekko wrote:

I'm afraid this is where i take issue with overseas players. Moa obviously has potential but i don't see it as a British clubs responsibility to develop it, particularly at the expense of a British player with equally as much untapped potential.

Its about having the balance i guess between being competetive by using the best you can get and developing local talent. FWIW we dont do bad at all in striking that balance.

: Mon Mar 16, 2009 11:01 am  

Big Dave T wrote:

Its about having the balance i guess between being competetive by using the best you can get and developing local talent. FWIW we dont do bad at all in striking that balance.

I agree, and Hull do seem to strike a decent enough balance which makes the signing of Moa even more strange. IMO clubs should only be bringing top quality overseas players over here that enhance the quality of the competition, not players who take valuable development time away from young British players.

: Mon Mar 16, 2009 11:02 am  

Gordon Gekko wrote:

I agree, and Hull do seem to strike a decent enough balance which makes the signing of Moa even more strange. IMO clubs should only be bringing top quality overseas players over here that enhance the quality of the competition, not players who take valuable development time away from young British players.

And Moa is a project that could become a top quality overseas player according to Agar, thats why he brought him over.