Depends on your definition of disappointing. Thorman never has been as good as Cooke. As for Dykes And Head, their problems were being fit, especially Dykes, as when they were actually on the field, they were very good.

I think it's more a case of Pro-Dobson to be honest. They are both capable of controlling the play, but Dobsons's work is more consistent and at a faster pace. Cooke is an enigma as a stand off, as he plays more like a scrum half. There were times last season when it all clicked and they were an outstanding pair. Unfortunately, this was the exception rather than the norm. 2010 is a big year for Cooke, as he has to perform to secure his future, and its been a lot of years since he had that type of pressure on him.

Its debatable, Thorman when through a period of playing internationals and was signed up to go to Oz. On that basis he would be as good as Cooke, different kinds of players though. (personally i agree that Cooke has always been a better player than Thorman but their records may disagree)

Agree too about Dykes and Head not been fit, sadly though due to that they didnt fill the gap that Cooke left.

Here's a debate then, as i see Dobson as been more of a running 6 rather than a passing 7, would rovers be a better team to shift more responsibility to cooke use Dobson in a lesser role?

I can't really debate that with you as I think Dobson is a pretty complete halfback - passing, running and kicking. That is a main reason behind Cooke been a bit peripheral, IMO. As he says in the recent HDM article, he and Horne complemented each other perfectly - neither have been as good consistently since Cooke left Hull (though there are other issues to bare in mind, of course). Cooke was the organizer, Horne the off-the-cuff creator. With Cooke-Webster there was an element of duplication, while Dobson does both (and works well with Galea or I'anson as a foil).
Because Cooke is right-sided and Dobson left-sided, taking a simplistic fan's eye view, you'd think the obvious thing to do would be to split them on the left and right respectively. Strangely, to me, when its been done that way its sometimes been in reverse. I think though that Morgan prefers to keep Dobson at the centre of things as much as possible.
A team may only need one experienced, well-rounded organizer, but you'd prefer 2 in the squad - but then one is likely to be frustrated. For me the debate is whether you play a second half beside Dobson, to share the burden but be in his shadow or go for a centre/back row type of stand-off - putting a lot of responsibility on Dobson but giving you a different dimension. Much as I like Cooke as a player, I can't see any argument for diminishing Dobson's role.

Absolutely not. As MR states above, your average Rovers fan has a vastly different opinion of Dobson's contribution than you, if you see him as a running 6. For example, I think Dobson's short kicking game in 2009 was the best in SL, and without him at 1st receiver, an awful lot of our tries would have gone begging.

and my question for debate was more around, do you think Rovers would have converted more opportunities or created better chances if Dobson wasnt always at 1st receiver and Cooke took some of it over. Gauging by your responses you think not. I dont have an opinion personally. Just an interesting debate to have.

When you put it like that, it is a tough question - I want to see more Cooke, but not less from Dobson. Rovers should therefore be allowed sets of 10, IMO.

cooke was never that good at Hull. At the time there was a lot of criticism that we were one dimensional and all we had was his cut out pass on the left. He certainly has ability but has always suffered from being inconsistent. He's only been a big loss at Hull because we've failed to replace him. There are plenty of better halfs around but we seem to have been incapable of picking one up. His loss to Hull has seemed worse due to 2 years of injury and indifference from Horne, 1/2 a season of a half fit head, a full season of an injury prone dykes and a season of the dog turd thorman. In the season he left we finished 4th despite a poor start.

His partnership with horne was certainly better than the sum of teh 2 individuals since

I'm maybe not understanding but youre saying Cooke wasnt that good at Hull yet he was our main weapon and we got to finals and won silverware with him here. Youre then saying we didnt replace him properly which is why we've suffered, that doesnt back up the theory that he wasnt that good at Hull does it?

I'm not saying he wasn't a decent player but wasn't this all time great some people seem to remember him as. He was certainly never anywhere near GB standard for instance. He was our main weapon mainly because we had no other weapons and I'd have said Richard Swain (who has been our biggest loss BTW)was far more influential in leading us to silverware and finals than cooke ever was. We have been playing with injured, poor or no half backs for most of the time since which is down to poor recruitment rather than the loss of an individual.

Do you understand now? Are you a rovers fan in disguise?

I kind of understand what youre saying, i dont agree. I'm not a Rovers fan in disguise, you do know that FC fans are permitted to have differing opinions dont you?

He's not an all time great. The arguement was that Cooke was our main attacking player. He was exceptional at the job he did for us, not just decent imo. He didnt have an all round game and meant we were one dimensional, but he gave us what we havent had since, a cutting attack. (i agree, we had no other weapons, that shouldnt water down the role that Cooke did, effectively he played 2 or 3 peoples roles)

I agree that Swain has been our biggest loss overall, however in attack its Cooke.

Yes we've been playing with poor players or injuries since Cooke left which is the reason we've been poor, but to go back the the original arguement, Cooke leaving is the reason for that! If Cooke hadnt left we wouldnt have made poor recruitment or brought in aussies with poor injury records, on that basis i'd say youre wrong to play down Cookes role at Hull as been an exceptional player and our key attacking weapon.

You contredict yourself in that post.
Cooke was the creator of 73% of your tries with much more then just a cut out pass.