: Mon Mar 23, 2009 8:57 am  

Kosh wrote:

I did wonder if that was a factor. Dowes and Yak have been getting through a mountain of work this season.

Don't want it to appear like an I told you so, but I have been expecting this to raise his head eventually, and have mentioned it on here. It was only a matter of time. A 10-minute sub does not help the situation either IMO, you simply can't expect 3-4 members of your pack to play 60+ minutes every week and it not have an impact on their level of performance.

: Mon Mar 23, 2009 8:59 am  

wolfie wrote:

in the last 5 weeks ive not seen one person on here criticise fitness or agars tactics,soon as we lose a game here we go

Criticise; maybe not. Question; definitely.

: Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:01 am  

Big Dave T wrote:

Hopefully. I still fancy us v quins too, we'd have won easily tonight if we'd have played at 50% rather than 25%!

Way too simplistic. If true Cas would have won by a lot more points.

Hull weren't that bad and only lost because Tickle missed some goals. Despite what most have said I thought Hull were the better side for most of the game and had they won it would have been a deserved win.

: Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:05 am  

It really does concern me that we play Salford, KR and Saints in a short period of time, we struggled on Friday night because of the short turnaround since Bradford.

Another factors of the decision to play all Friday nights.

: Mon Mar 23, 2009 10:28 am  

Gordon Gekko wrote:

Way too simplistic. If true Cas would have won by a lot more points.

Hull weren't that bad and only lost because Tickle missed some goals. Despite what most have said I thought Hull were the better side for most of the game and had they won it would have been a deserved win.

We were grabage and Cas were OK but there for the beating.

Yes we'd have won had Tickle kicked the goals but still wouldnt have deserved it.

Our forwards were out muscled and our set completion must have been below 50%. in short thats the reason we got beat. If our forwards had won the battle like previous games and our team had completed even 75% of the sets then we'd have won by a clear margin IMO.

: Mon Mar 23, 2009 10:37 am  

Big Dave T wrote:

We were grabage and Cas were OK but there for the beating.

Yes we'd have won had Tickle kicked the goals but still wouldnt have deserved it.

Our forwards were out muscled and our set completion must have been below 50%. in short thats the reason we got beat. If our forwards had won the battle like previous games and our team had completed even 75% of the sets then we'd have won by a clear margin IMO.

Lets agree to disagree.

Hull did more than enough to win on Friday 4 tries to 3 would have made them deserved winners IMO, had Tickle not had an off day. I don't think they were particularly out muscled up front though I do think Agar could use his subs better.

: Mon Mar 23, 2009 10:38 am  

Gordon Gekko wrote:

Lets agree to disagree.

Hull did more than enough to win on Friday 4 tries to 3 would have made them deserved winners IMO, had Tickle not had an off day. I don't think they were particularly out muscled up front though I do think Agar could use his subs better.

Agree to disagree, but 4 tries to 3 wholly flatters us. Cas were so much better but were still average.

: Mon Mar 23, 2009 10:41 am  

Gordon Gekko wrote:

Lets agree to disagree.

Hull did more than enough to win on Friday 4 tries to 3 would have made them deserved winners IMO, had Tickle not had an off day. I don't think they were particularly out muscled up front though I do think Agar could use his subs better.

Agree that Agar made some "interesting" decisions about players. What we really needed was someone to come and get hold of the game, it's one of those games where a fit Paul King can make a difference, shame he played reserves.

: Mon Mar 23, 2009 10:45 am  

Standee wrote:

Agree that Agar made some "interesting" decisions about players. What we really needed was someone to come and get hold of the game, it's one of those games where a fit Paul King can make a difference, shame he played reserves.

Wasnt particularly good in the reserves either apparently.

thacks and Moa showed enough to warrant being there for me, we were just woeful controlling the ball.

: Mon Mar 23, 2009 11:00 am  

Yeamo wrote:

I think Washbrook may replace Moa next week

I reckon so too, he needs to get fitter so we can get more gametime out of him.