A prop has got to do the hard yards, drive their team on and provide a platform for the backs to do their stuff. A brilliant hard tackle or a good driving run can swing the momentum for your team.

The sign of a really good prop (and indeed any player) however is if they're hated by opposition fans and loved by their own. Who's got a real nasty edge, who's niggly, who causes the opposition players to lose their own focus and engage in mini battles with him.

Our props have the qualities in the 1st paragraph above...but when we bought Masoe, I think we all hoped/expected him to bring the kind of qualities I'm talking about in the 2nd paragraph.

Masoe is capable of much much more. It's no good doing it once every few games.

bring your boots on Sunday....it seems that will rectify all our problems

Total e again. Dont expect much different mind.

I see the debate has gone again and it's back to personal insults. Can people not post a view point without having a go.

I think the phrase is called playing the ball not the man,

Mose is a devisive player. Half of my friends think he's a lazy bugger, half (i'm fall on this side) say he's generally badly used. We knew what we were getting, and a 60 min energised, 40 tackle a game prop it wasn't. A player who on occasion can completely change a game on his own by single handedly destroying an opposition pack is what he is. Doesnt happen every week, and if we ask him to do much more than 30 mins a game it wont happen at all.

Exactly, I,ve seen loads of instances were he comes charging in from deep the opposition players come across but Roby or the halves switch play to the other side. We also use to see Mose take a short ball turn his back into the opposition and offload into second phase that tactic is now stopped.
So in my opinion its the coaching staff and player options that are partially to blame, we don't do enough set plays with Mose, giving him flat balls with the opposition quickly on him is a completely waste of time. If Mose doen't work to a technical plan then you get a lazy Mose most of the time.
Sometimes the club is not very good at getting the best out of players, we did it with Shenton years back and turned him into an average player, the way we used Lance was another one, and there are others.

Mose wasn't brought for his defence, he was brought to cause utter carnage in 20 min spells (mainly with the ball). His defence around the legs is very good for such a big guy, I actully use Mose as example to the big lads in the team i coach.

I agree he was brought in as a impact player and a player that can give you momentem when he comes on the field (like his first spell on good friday) but 70% of the time he offers no impact at all, some games his spell lasts 10 mins or less in which he hardly takes a carry. He shouid be pushing Amor to the side telling him this is my ball but he's now lingering 4 men out from the PTB and puts himself in a positon thst he can't get the ball.

Imo when he's good he's very good but when he's bad, he's awful. One game last year, he did 6 carries and often just about makes double figures. For me that's not good enough from what we consider as a top end prop.

I've heard everyone make excuses for him like - he's not fit because of injury. Wait until the dry ground. Brown doesn't know how to use him. KC doesn't know how to use him. We deliberately don't let him take drives. We don't want him takibg a carry in our own 20m zone. Teans gang up on him.

Jesus! It's everyone's fault apart from his own!

I thought he did really well against Wigan on Friday, and the game really swung our way when he was on. If we had anyone with any creativity or guile on the park we would have won comprehensively.

He was anonymous on Monday, but like the rest of the pack looked completely knackered.

I have no thoughts on Mose as a player. However the discussions shows a flaw in our game when a player is only seen as being able to play a maximum of 30 minutes of an 80 minutes match. The sooner the number of interchanges is reduced the better so that the big guys become tired and those with speed and skill can exploit the situation.

The effectiveness of Mose has, like a lot of other things, decreased with our struggle to put effective half backs onto the pitch.

What an odd thing to say. Our league is enough of a joke defensively already without weakening it even more. Besides, how much 'skill' does it take to (using your word) exploit a tired big man? Surely if they were as skillfil as you thought they were, they could produce when the defence has energy and intensity. That's the way I'd like to see it, with you needing to be at your very best to score or create a try. Why would you want to see them get an easy ride? Especially when it seems like that's what your problem is with 'big men' in general, that they have it too easy? Bizarre.

Perhaps far too many people are concentrating on the literal meaning of Cunningham's words. He could quite easily be disappointed with the team - full stop - and the comment is purely a piece of motivational psychology meant to leave players wondering whether he's talking about them.

Not an odd thing at all. That's why we are reducing the interchanges. Good big men can do big minutes. This thread is about a player who some see as only able to play for 30 minutes if he is to be effective.

Exactly. Most people assume Mose because of what they saw with their own eyeSent presumably.
It seems to me that KC was talking in the plural but I don't think he meant the whole team somehow.

I wasn't at the game so who else assuming one was the big guy did he have in his sights?

Wish FM commentary just said Flanagan had a bollocking this week.