Must be a long way back to hull when your e then

No, it is not the same thing!

The commentators may give their opinions, e.g. "Tansey has been poor" or "Whiting should have scored" but they also provide facts, e.g. "Radford has been penalised" or "Hall has knocked on". You can listen to a commentary and form an opinion, based on what you have heard. For example I know Berrigan was quiet because his name was barely mentioned on Five Live.

In your analogy it would be like a friend describing in detail what happened in Lost minute by minute. If I hadn't listened to the commentary but someone told me "Hull were rubbish" then of course I couldn't form an opinion.

By the way, Lost was bloody brilliant this week

You're right, to an extent you can get a rough idea by listening, provided the commentry is accurate, but it is no subsitute for actually watching it, not by any means. The opinion of someone who has watched carries far more weight than someone who has listened.

This is fantastic, you actually are serious.

You're both partly right.

You can form an opinion on the generalities of a game from the commentary - although if you're listening to DDD it's a lot more difficult. For instance, forming the opinion that we gave away far too many penalties and/or didn't have enough possession doesn't require that you saw the game. What you can't form a full opinion on is the details of how well individual players performed, how good was the ref, etc. This is why I never vote on the MOM thread when I haven't seen a game for example.

And your analogy was a bit off TBH. If someone had given you a running commentary of the Lost episode you'd have been able to form an opinion of whether it sounded like a good episode or not.

So you've never formed an opinion on [ianything[/i that you haven't witnessed with your own eyes?



Think about it.

I did go to the game and did not think this Hull team would get outclassed in the way they did on friday. Without seeing TV close ups of penalty decisions it did seem that a raise in the noise levels of the Wigan fans always resulted in Mr Halibert blowing his whistle. I do wonder whether we are better suited to winter conditions than open running conditions.

Sadly, I agree with this. Think the wing is wrong for him - time to develop him more in his true centre position.

This season is starting to remind me of last - we start strong then teams suss out our weakness and play on it. This time it's our lack of wingers. How can a Super League club have only one experienced winger ffs? I know we thought we were covered with Lyne and Tuffour coming through and Briscoe there but all of a sudden with Calderwood's lack of game time that theory's looking pretty damn weak.

I cannot understand why, knowing as they did about the court case etc, Hull gave Raynor the 5 shirt only to get rid of him just before the season started. Surely this should have happened ages ago if it was going to at all and the close season goal be to get an experienced replacement. Would we have shipped 48 on Friday if Raynor had been playing?

Either way, suddenly, for me, we have a new priority - get a second experienced winger signed pdq.

Was getting rid of Raynor a bit hasty?
Calderwood and Raynor on each wing . Yeaman at left centre . Hall , Briscoe and Whiting fighting for the right centre spot.
Tom is a talent but he needs to play centre.

Legal advice could easily have changed. It's entirely possible that the club were advised that he'd be fine, only to be told later that the situation was now worse. I think that they stuck with him as long as they could but the combination of a less optimistic legal prognosis and his continuing injury trouble combined to change their mind.

Just an unfortunate combination of circumstances.