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.

no it was the right choice.

Circumstances but getting rid was right choice....my concern is the Moa re-signing...was very hasty and could have used money for another back or qouta spot

And then, when one of our props got injured, we'd be without cover.

Lauali can cover....got ample cover up front but no cover in wings.

No cover? We've only 1 recognised SL winger in the whole squad.

Not really.

Rubbish, you have no idea if the penalty a) should have been awarded b) it was a forced penalty(holding the tackler down to gain penalty) or c) it was a blatant penalty. You would be using [iother[/i peoples opinions to make your own.

Maybe my analogy wasn't the perfect example but you get the idea I was trying to get across.

None of which has any relevance to the [inumber[/i of penalties compared to the other team. Neither is any of it relevant to the amount of possession. You don't need to make a value judgement of why the pens are happening to know that there are too many of them or that they're causing a problem. Now - if you wanted to get into a discussion about how justified they were, as you outline above, you'd need to have seen the game.


Yes, but your idea is flawed. Or at least partly. There are parts of a game that it's perfectly possible to get enough info about from a radio commentary to form an opinion , and parts that there aren't.

Rubbish, again.

There is no way you can have [iyour[/i own opinion on a game you never saw.

End of.