I know there`s already a post on this subject but just found out tonight and this is a absolute shocker and needs another post the emphasise the glue sniffing at the club ??

WTF ??

My initial reaction was the same but when I thought about his age, the number of fullbacks we have signed up, the reserve team situation from next year etc it made sense to me. Might feel wrong but its a practical decision.

I'm sorry but I have to say that's absolute nonsense.

Firstly, his natural position isnt full back, its in the halves. Full back is somewhere we instinctively stuck him like we do all young backs as it's a position you can ease someone in to. He has a lot of talent, more than almost anyone in the team. Getting rid, whilst keeping Thomas Sodding Coyle, who has time and time again disappointed, and Allen, etc etc etc is absolutely unforgivable. I am starting to wonder whether anyone knows what they are doing with this squad. Coyle isn't good enough for us in this division. Yet we let go our promising youngsters, the players who should have been first to sign up.

What an absolute joke of a decision. I am not going to play the optimist over this one as I have in the past. It defies explanation.

But if you want to judge them on positions Coyle is a far better 9 than Danny! IMO Hulmey would be best at FB as when you look at his strengths they are far more suited to a FB than half back IMO!

Why Allen brought into it again

I'll tell you why. Because these two have been retained and others haven't. And I think describing Coyle as strong in any position is going too far. He's not good enough. Hulme was being played out of position at full back, something we've done in the past o the likes of Grady and Myler. We never gave him a shot at scrum half.

Coyle isn't "far better" than my nan quite frankly. He has so many bad days you'd think we'd have gotten the picture by now.

I had an interesting conversation with an anonymous Widnes fan at Jellybeans yesterday. We were both wearing our garb!!!
He was fumin, but offered a decent explanation.
His thoughts were that Gore and Gilmore are our future halfbacks! That these two lads will be playing regular football together in the next two - three years and that we have a formidable partnership on our hands. The hunt is still underway for the SH we have been after for a while and a hooker. The problem we have with Danny is that these are his positions. Craven is a better fullback and a better option at stand-off (not hard as you say because Hulme isn't a fullback) but he was making the point that we have a lot of options.
Hulme will be a very good player in this league but the young players we do have signed could be fantastic talents in SL.
When you add into the argument the fact that Hulme will be unavailable for 1 year and is still undecided about whether he want's a full time career in RL then it makes it all a little more understandable.

As for Coyle, if he had kept up his performances that we had seen him capable of early part of the season in the last three or four games I don't think there would be too much argument with him. His lack of recent form has coincided with the teams recent bad run.

I've heard about the potential of both Gore and Gilmore before now, and it sounds like they have the world at their feet. The problem is, we've not been playing them. I don't see why we can't take a chance on Hulme too. We've got Craven at full back, and he is one of the best we've had in recent years. But I don't see why we can't take a chance at this stage at the most consistent player in recent months.

As for Coyle, I disagree. I do not know what people see in him and never have. His distribution is slow, his defence isn't up to it, his inside passes fool no one. I would love to be proved wrong, but for me, he is disappointing in this league, and in super league, its a farce we're bringing him along at this stage. Our recruitment has been very questionable so far. I'm not saying I know the ins and outs, there may be more to come, there may be a reason for the madness so far, but to me, keeping the likes of Coyle and (sad to say) Pickersgill leaves a lot of questions.

Don't fully buy that Danny isn't in his best spot! His best attributes are his speed, elusiveness and how well he returns the ball back? Playing 7 how many 80m returns that he's lit the place up with would you get? None.

My only minor criticism of him at FB would also back it up as in attack he doesn't really get involved, he does great on the shoulders of likes of I'Anson but doesn't provide that extra pivot like Craven does, surely a half out of position would want more ball in hand?

Coyle had an outstanding start to the season despite being messed about a tad switching between 9 & 7 mid game, the fact all the coaches have praised him highly and also he's players player of the year is fine for me.

As Chris B said he's been out of form recently which has made him an easier target as others being released.

Quite simply, I guess it all boils down to the fact that the club think that they have better players than Danny in the positions he plays.

As for Coyle. I guess it is true that some people notice certain aspects of a players game more than others. I've always watched him quite closely because he was a hot head and liable to spark at any time.
This year he has taken the ball to the line well, his passing is okay, (although he has thrown one or two absolute shockers), he can pass from both sides and I'm not sure his defence has been all that suspect.
There are games where we have had real go forward with him on the pitch and I've been calling for him to be re-introduced and get the game moving again. He's not an 80 mins player though.

what i meant was i can see a reasoning to it. I didnt say i agreed with it

Just get in before Little Rich - YOOF!!!!

It is a shame about Danny. I can't say I fully understand it, though I am trying to. I understand that his opportunity at fullback would be limited, but he can also play in the halves and at hooker. He's still young enough, and quick enough, to perhaps move into the three quarter line. If the club didn't see an immediate future for him at the club, they could have loaned him out as a dual regger for a season or two, and decide then whether or not to extend his contract any further after that.

Other than him, I'm not too worried at all by the release of any of the other players, and can even see the sense in it. It's some of the dross we've actually kept on that worries me.

The only thing we dont know is how much the players are costing that we are keeping. Maybe we've kept them as we could get away with lower end salaries, ready for post September 1st

I'm saving my judgement on the squad unitl its complete. By then we may get an understanding of some of the "strange" decisons that we have seen over player recuitment

No amount of training makes people backup the way Hulme does and he also can beat a man by stepping and accelerating away (another trick that 95% of rugby players never quite get good at).

You also get 100% effort, quick distribution and good technique when tackling for free.

I and many others forgive him the mistakes he's made recently for a number of reasons, such as age/lack of experience, playing out of position and because we all want to see local lads getting a chance and doing well.

I don't care what position he's playing, he's a natural rugby player and if our coaches can't see that but think that Coyle, Allen, Pickergill etc are good players for Superleague then it makes me worry about the future on the field performances of our club.

I'm also sorry to see Lunt and Varks go, but when it comes to Hulme their decision is just wrong!