: Tue Mar 03, 2009 1:49 pm  

PAUL M wrote:

On what grounds?

no grounds paul just a feeling.

: Tue Mar 03, 2009 1:50 pm  

PAUL M wrote:

We end up with two no.6's and no SH though.

a bit like now?

: Tue Mar 03, 2009 1:52 pm  

Sheldon wrote:

no grounds paul just a feeling.

We spoke to him or his agent back in Nov/Dec but we ended up signing Thorman. I very much doubt we would want him now. Hull are looking for a top SH for 2010 so bringing him over would make no sense. He does the same job as Horne really and we have Hall and Motu for FB.

: Tue Mar 03, 2009 1:53 pm  

Sheldon wrote:

a bit like now?

Thorman plays like a 7 for me and likes to organise and kick whereas Horne likes to do little organising and only kicks now and then.

: Tue Mar 03, 2009 1:54 pm  

PAUL M wrote:

We end up with two no.6's and no SH though.

3 no. 6's in my estimation!

: Tue Mar 03, 2009 1:56 pm  

PAUL M wrote:

We spoke to him or his agent back in Nov/Dec but we ended up signing Thorman. I very much doubt we would want him now. Hull are looking for a top SH for 2010 so bringing him over would make no sense. He does the same job as Horne really and we have Hall and Motu for FB.

I think we more than spoke to him, we wanted him and made him an offer he turned us down opting to stay in NZ, we wouldn't have signed Thorman if we'd got Witt to come over. He was our first choice.

: Tue Mar 03, 2009 1:57 pm  

PAUL M wrote:

We end up with two no.6's and no SH though.

I dont really buy into the whole hes a 6 not a 7 tbh. The way Hull play we could name Horne at 7 and Thorman at 6 and both would still play the same type of game.

Its like Leeds, do you think Burrows is a scrum half ? Sinfield is always the organiser and majority of times is at 1st reciever but hes named at 13.

: Tue Mar 03, 2009 1:57 pm  

Smiggs wrote:

I think we more than spoke to him, we wanted him and made him an offer he turned us down opting to stay in NZ, we wouldn't have signed Thorman if we'd got Witt to come over. He was our first choice.

Fully agree. If we get him though we won't get a SH for 2010 and that's what I want.

: Tue Mar 03, 2009 1:59 pm  

PAUL M wrote:

We spoke to him or his agent back in Nov/Dec but we ended up signing Thorman. I very much doubt we would want him now. Hull are looking for a top SH for 2010 so bringing him over would make no sense. He does the same job as Horne really and we have Hall and Motu for FB.

That's my view too.

I don't see the point in signing him just incase Thorman or Horne are to get injured. There are players within the squad who can cover the halfback positions for a few games. Only if a longer injury occured, should we be thinking about bringing in another halfback.

: Tue Mar 03, 2009 1:59 pm  

Superbowl Scott wrote:

I dont really buy into the whole hes a 6 not a 7 tbh. The way Hull play we could name Horne at 7 and Thorman at 6 and both would still play the same type of game.

Its like Leeds, do you think Burrows is a scrum half ? Sinfield is always the organiser and majority of times is at 1st reciever but hes named at 13.

I agree numbers are irrelevant, what I am saying is Horne and Witt are both runners which imo would leave us unbalanced in the halves.