We all have opinions I guess. Fact is he was considered not good enough for london and no one else wanted him. He offers no attacking threat whatsoever and is shaky under the high ball (in fact he hides when they come his way)

We let 1 try in which isn't bad in 80 mins of rugby..out wide aswell...we should be more then happy..he makes good yards going forward your talking bull smack mate!

People can try and convince themselves that colborn is a decent winger all they want but they'll realise at some point that he's way below the standard we need

If we had a full fit squad he prob wouldn't be in but its not an ideal world is it bud?

Well, compared to your vast RL knowledge which you keep reminding everyone of, you're probably right.

Probably? I'd hope your mate has more sense than that. Just had a look at colborn's stats. he's attempted 26 tackles this year and missed 11 of them (58% success). talanoa has attempted 31 and missed 3 (90% success). The much maligned ben crooks has missed 19 of the 130 he's attempted (85% success)and arundel has missed 1 of 30 (975 success). Add in colborn being really poor under the high ball and his sluggishness and I stick by my opinion of him. By far the weakest experienced player in the squad. He's not bad at bringing the ball back but you always know it's just a case of him driving it in whereas with the other wingers look like they will break tackles once in a while

I know enough to see that huddersfield were below par last night but if you want to convince yourself otherwise knock yourself out.

When did I ever say that?

I assumed you were disagreeing with my assessment of huddersfield when you were claiming I was belittling Hull's win when I said huddersfield were poor.

Huddersfield didn't play well, were below par, didn't turn up, or whatever, because we played well and didn't allow them to get into the game.
The opposite, belittling view, is that we won because they were poor.

Agree with the above. Hate seeing people always say 'xxxxxx played poor'. Hudds were poor because we played well. Aggressive defence and hard running completely wore them down. I admit the short turnaround don't help, but our forwards made the most of that and fatigued them even more.

So now you are saying they were below par? 2 posts ago you were picking me up for suggesting you were so make your mind up.

Fact is huddersfield were below par which is what I said and now you seem to be agreeing with me but you're suggesting it's purely down to Hull's performance which seems highly unlikely to me. More likely it's a mix of a decent performance from us, particularly early on, and hudds suffering a challenge cup hangover and continuance of their generally poor early season form.

I've already said Hull were good in patches but I also think there were parts of the game (pretty much co-incided with paea, carvell and houghton being off the field) when we weren't that great.

I call games how I see them and feel free to disagree. Plenty do but over time I'm generally proved right

Yeah but what I actually said has been blown out of proportion. I merely said that some people have been getting carried away with a decent enough win but against a poor hudds side. I'm happy to stand by that and it's a criticism of the posters, not the team who I thought were much better than they have been for most of the season

No, not in the way you are - the word "because" is key....

That's not what you were querying though is it?

Anyway, who cares about semantics. Your assertion that huddersfield were below par purely because Hull didn't allow them to be anything else is nonsensical. Certainly a big contributory factor but if they'd been as good as they were last season no way would we have had such a comfortable win no matter how well we played