Re: Team for Friendly : Mon Jan 09, 2017 4:51 pm  

tbf to Radford hes said from the off hes gonna play youngsters to see how they go, hulls main team will be more or less the same as last year and he knows that, we looked shot at the end of last year so hes going about the start of this year a bit different, at times yesterday it was men against boys, some of our youngsters are not ready yet and it showed, but best to find out now, some looked ok and might be needed later on, for your part you looked good and I am confident you will finnish 1 or 2.

Re: Team for Friendly : Mon Jan 09, 2017 4:58 pm  

barham red wrote:

I often find when teams (both RL and football) field a weakened team to see how they go they are often doing the kids a disservice, I would have thought you'd get a better view of how good the kids are by feeding one or 2 of them in alongside the quality players.

I would imagine a young winger would benefit from playing outside a 1st teamer rather than outside a lad who maybe is getting his positioning / passing wrong.

I'm actually surprised Radford has changed his method from last year where he seemed to play the friendlies with more 1st teamers, suppose he has a more settled squad this year.

I never went but have seen some of the tries and our speed of play looked pretty good, for me the biggest result was we came out unscathed, the fact we seemed to do some good stuff is a bonus.

Agree with this Barham. It's a balancing act and Radford didn't have anywhere near enough experience on the park. The benefits of such a contest were most certainly in our favour and we were comfortable capitalising on them from what I've seen.

Re: Team for Friendly : Mon Jan 09, 2017 5:03 pm  

hull2524 wrote:

tbf to Radford hes said from the off hes gonna play youngsters to see how they go, hulls main team will be more or less the same as last year and he knows that, we looked shot at the end of last year so hes going about the start of this year a bit different, at times yesterday it was men against boys, some of our youngsters are not ready yet and it showed, but best to find out now, some looked ok and might be needed later on, for your part you looked good and I am confident you will finnish 1 or 2.

It only appeared to be men v boys. Average age of FC 22, average KR 23 and that included our pensioner Disco Dave.

Re: Team for Friendly : Mon Jan 09, 2017 6:05 pm  

maybe so, but I would be surprised to see any of the team that played the 2nd half be in our 17, different objectives for both teams and no injuries so jobs a gud un

Re: Team for Friendly : Mon Jan 09, 2017 6:19 pm  

hull2524 wrote:

maybe so, but I would be surprised to see any of the team that played the 2nd half be in our 17, different objectives for both teams and no injuries so jobs a gud un

Job's a gud un. Maybe so, but by flagging up in advance that he intended to play an inexperienced line up, he took at least 2-3k off the gate and devalued what is a vital element of preseason Derby intensity in a contest bearing the name of our mutually shared game icon.

It's like me telling my wife of 38 years when I forget her anniversary celebration not to worry as there will always be next year and then ducking when the inevitable right hook follows.

Re: Team for Friendly : Mon Jan 09, 2017 6:23 pm  

hull2524 wrote:

maybe so, but I would be surprised to see any of the team that played the 2nd half be in our 17, different objectives for both teams and no injuries so jobs a gud un

it would suggest however that at an average age of 22 unless most of those fringe players prove to be late developers they are not going to make the grade to meet the aspirations of your club.

Re: Team for Friendly : Mon Jan 09, 2017 6:39 pm  

I understand Radford's approach to pre-season, I just don't understand the point of arranging five warm up games if they only really wanted one.

I'm sure both sides got what they wanted from the game. Hull's players wanted to stake individual claims, we needed a chance to gel as a unit. I like where we are but it's too early to get excited.

Re: Team for Friendly : Mon Jan 09, 2017 6:45 pm  

barham red wrote:

I often find when teams (both RL and football) field a weakened team to see how they go they are often doing the kids a disservice, I would have thought you'd get a better view of how good the kids are by feeding one or 2 of them in alongside the quality players.

I would imagine a young winger would benefit from playing outside a 1st teamer rather than outside a lad who maybe is getting his positioning / passing wrong.

I'm actually surprised Radford has changed his method from last year where he seemed to play the friendlies with more 1st teamers, suppose he has a more settled squad this year.

I never went but have seen some of the tries and our speed of play looked pretty good, for me the biggest result was we came out unscathed, the fact we seemed to do some good stuff is a bonus.

He hasn't changed his method, last season he played all his big players once, against you, he is doing the same this season against Salford.

He would rather play them against a SL side, which makes sense.

Re: Team for Friendly : Mon Jan 09, 2017 6:52 pm  

I assume the majority of Hull's team yesterday played in their under 23 team last year. This been the case, it is not a very good advert for this competition.
I didn't go yesterday so I'm only going by the radio/ HDM reports but it would seem the majority are a way off first team readiness.
Is this a reflection on teams commitment to under 23 rugby ?

Re: Team for Friendly : Mon Jan 09, 2017 6:55 pm  

Dave K. wrote:

He hasn't changed his method, last season he played all his big players once, against you, he is doing the same this season against Salford.

He would rather play them against a SL side, which makes sense.

Explain the logic of the timings of the Cas, Toronto and Doncaster games then. Scope for injuries and weird that Cas were up first. Salford I can understand, but Donny last. You're kidding me.