Quote: Fantastic Mr Catpiss "that would suggest that cull signed these two players to play seven and must have been intending to off load Lee briers who would then be replaced by bridge.
Is this what you're suggesting?'"
No
Imo and how I remember it.
not just making it up to wind people up as I keep getting accused of.
it ain't just debate and I might not be right all the time or some of the time but its well intended.
Briers was role was scrum half regardless of what number was upon his back when he played with Bridge.
We brought Sullivan in to play 7 and we know he was a natural hooker. We needed 3 backs and Hulse wasn't going to figure.
That backfired with Sullivan and he was shown the door but Bridge found form and Briers finish the season okay. Racking up around 50 per game in the last 3 together I think.
We brought Monas in because the Andrew Johns deal backfired and Cullen had given up on Bridgeys off field problems by then. Bridgey was set to be shown the door...not Briers.
The problem that then arisen was Monas wasn't to hb that Johns made him out to be.
Therein lies the problem and the reason Cullen left the job.
I put it to Cullen that if it hadn't been for Warrington over achieving through shrewd team selection the season prior and then being rewarded with 3 extra games against leeds wigan and saints the season following and Bridgeys off field problems and ankle injury he would still have been Warrington coach...that was a theory he wouldn’t deny to me.
That I can swear on my sons life.
My job is a driver and I took him to the JJB when I put it too him.
So believe what you will and allow my to post theorised and receive constructive critique on the back of them please.
Random remarks like shut your talking tripe without reason constructive replies arn't nice.
We can all post one sentence slagging off but at least there are posters like Yed morrisseyisawire SC and others who are prepared to make topics much deeper than a few do.
