Tough choice and difficult to disagree with a lot of what he says.....................but i would still have kept him! is there much between Hulme and Craven? Hulme is a better attacking full back but less sound as a defensive player. www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/ru ... -29333294/

Tough choice and difficult to disagree with a lot of what he says.....................but i would still have kept him! is there much between Hulme and Craven? Hulme is a better attacking full back but less sound as a defensive player. www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/ru ... -29333294/

I would have kept him ahead of at least one player which we have signed on for next year. I still regard the decision to dump him as poor. But it is up to the coaching staff. That's their job.

I will, however, be looking at the performances of those they have deemed good enough to be kept on ahead of him, with a very critical eye. They really do have to perform in order to justify the release of such a promising youngster as Danny Hulme.

His performances at full back have been stronger than that of Craven in my opinion, particularly in attack and defence. If his natural position is 9 then I'd put him there ahead of T Coyle any day of the week.

Betts must be on glue.

I was privy to an interesting conversation between betts and cull in the dw sports changing room this morning. discussing certain players reactions to being given the boot. I got the impression it wasnt betts who actually broke the news to the individuals, which seemed a bit strange to me.

Really? Craven reads it much better and is more useful in an attacking line whereas Danny is a returner / open field runner.

Better than Coyle at 9? Sorry that's just made up.

Agree with youon this mate.Unfortunanetly Superleague is not u23s and he sees him in training more than we do to be honest.He has not slagged him off but we need to balance the side.If we did not have 3 decent fullbacks at the club then Danny would have stayed.He wont get in the 17, so i think Betts has done him a favour as will get first team game time.

anyways, tomorrow is the first of september so hopefully they will be able to reveal some badass signings and it will all make sense

He never hardly stood out at hooker in the reserves and wont be ahead of the new signing at hooker or Coyle.Get over it he has gone now.People at Wigan could have moaned when Ben Davies was standing out in the reserves.

ahh yes, i didnt consider that pepe. Again, i think i overheard them both saying something about a meeting or conference/announcement at 10 am. They were on the other side of the changing rooms and i was trying to not be too obvious in my listening, so i could be wrong. but as nothing seems to have happened today they may have been talking about tomorrow.

I think, in the few games Hulmey played in the first team at hooker, he did OK. His ball distribution was good, as was his dummy half scoots. He just needed to be a little bit bigger in order to mix it with the forwards. That would come and, given his lineage, he'll be tough enough.

There is certainly enough about that lad to see that he could have been moulded in to playing several positions, given the time. He looks like a natural RL player to me. Would have counted on the homegrown quota too.

Hey ho, they know best.

Nice bit of snout there. I'lll be glued to my phone tomorrow in anticipation.

I do like him as a player and nobody will know how he develops to be honest.Craven,Brown,Owens,Gilmore,Gore,Mullaly we have a chain of youth mate.Whoever plays i will support my team.I am just bored as it going on as if we lost a young Lockyer or Thurston.

The problem you will have there Pep is that you won't know which player playing which position to compare to Hulme.Our coach doesn't know what he is so the solution to this dilemma is to get rid.Genius coaching that is.

It does look like a complete cop-out by the coaching staff, or something even worse - favouritism of some sort.