: Wed Feb 25, 2009 7:42 pm  

General Zod. wrote:

It's a perfect opportunity to see how I'Anson would fit in alongside Dobson at half back.

Leave Murrell @ 13 cos we need some continuity to start getting some rythm in our play.

Scott, we know we asked you to put on 13 stone to become looseforward but you've got 5 days to lose it as you are playing standoff next week.
For ****s sake we have a standoff, he's called I'anson. So ****ing use him.

: Wed Feb 25, 2009 7:48 pm  

blakeysrobin wrote:

:CLAP:
Scott, we know we asked you to put on 13 stone to become looseforward but you've got 5 days to lose it as you are playing standoff next week.
For ****s sake we have a standoff, he's called I'anson. So ****ing use him.

Why would a 13 have to be heavier than a 6?

I would imagine Cooke is heavier than Murrell and if not pretty close!!

I know someone who is nearly 17 stone and makes kids look stupid in training when he plays 6

: Wed Feb 25, 2009 7:54 pm  

Bandito wrote:

:lol:
Why would a 13 have to be heavier than a 6?

I would imagine Cooke is heavier than Murrell and if not pretty close!!

I know someone who is nearly 17 stone and makes kids look stupid in training when he plays 6

Come on, slight exaggeration and you know it. Murrell was a stand off but weight trained to become a loose forward.

My point was to leave hin there. We have other options.

: Wed Feb 25, 2009 8:00 pm  

blakeysrobin wrote:

:CLAP:
Scott, we know we asked you to put on 13 stone to become looseforward but you've got 5 days to lose it as you are playing standoff next week.
For ****s sake we have a standoff, he's called I'anson. So ****ing use him.

Well said mate.

Being successful is not just about personnel, it's about continuity - play a player position and leave him there (as long as he's performing) and if he gets injured replace like for like instead of tw@ting about tinkering with the team otherwise we will just end up going in circles having inconsistent performances.

Continuity brings consistency and consistency brings success...

: Wed Feb 25, 2009 8:12 pm  

Just get the feeling that Morgan wants a team thats adaptable. Some positions can allow that but others cant. I'anson is a direct replacement for Cooke, make it so, otherwise a promising player will get pi$$ed off very quickly.
Does it matter if he bombs? We wont get relegated on the back of one result. Its not Celtic, its Saints after all. Give the youngsters a chance.

: Thu Feb 26, 2009 9:36 am  

blakeysrobin wrote:

Come on, slight exaggeration and you know it. Murrell was a stand off but weight trained to become a loose forward.

My point was to leave hin there. We have other options.

I can see what you was getting at but it still does not answer the question of why someone would have to put weight on to play 13.

If a lad is a spot he will get spotted so his size would not effect his defence wherever he is in the line because a good side would run over him on the wing or in the middle of the park.

In good ball the chance of a 6 or 13 needing to power over the line is slim and therefore surely he would be better being lighter to use his feet to evade tackles?

Just my thoughts like

: Thu Feb 26, 2009 9:43 am  

Bandito wrote:

I can see what you was getting at but it still does not answer the question of why someone would have to put weight on to play 13.

If a lad is a spot he will get spotted so his size would not effect his defence wherever he is in the line because a good side would run over him on the wing or in the middle of the park.

In good ball the chance of a 6 or 13 needing to power over the line is slim and therefore surely he would be better being lighter to use his feet to evade tackles?

Just my thoughts like

You been reading that coaching manual again

: Thu Feb 26, 2009 9:49 am  

Gordon Gekko wrote:

You been reading that coaching manual again

I took a break from pleasuring DP and listened to him on the phone to someone ha ha

: Thu Feb 26, 2009 9:57 am  

Bandito wrote:

I took a break from pleasuring DP and listened to him on the phone to someone ha ha

: Thu Feb 26, 2009 9:59 am  

General Zod. wrote:

No he wouldn't, at all.

You might as now bothered replying, I could have guessed what you biased post would ahve said, before you typed it.

Lee is a decent hooker, we have tow very good hookers in front on him at Hull at the moment, most of your fans know that Fitzhenry isnt a hooker and Fisher's form has been poor recentley.