You misunderstand me if you think I am saying Paul Cooke wasnt a good player. It was a team limitation at the time and an area we needed to improve with our without Cooke.

I did misunderstand you, mainly as you were agreeing with JTP who was finding any reason he could to play down Cooke as an exceptional player when he was at FC. FWIW Yeamo and Raynor would have struggled to get in the GB team if it wasnt for the service they received from Cooke.

We did need to change our game plan to have more dimensions i agree. We've not managed since Cooke has left though imo.

Your bang on the money he was.
But because he left Hull for Rovers people will argue against it just for the sake of it.

Yeaman never played for GB under Kear. His 2 caps were on the tour at the end of the 2006 season, long after Swain & co had got Kear the sack.

Around the same amount Briers has won whilst being Warrington's exceptional player for the last decade.

I agree with you Dave about the importance of Cooke and his influence as Hulls main go to man, I would say he should have played for GB in 2006 but the bigger picture tells me that by that time we became too reliant on one player and that style of play. We had better attacking options in 2004 when Smith, Cooke and to some extent Lupton played together (scoring over 70 points twice in a game that year). We were on the verge of big things but did not develop in the right areas over the next couple of seasons.

Hindsight is a great thing.

Rovers fans overstate his importance and Jake underplayed it. Truth is probably some where in between I would say.

briers is the epitome of inconsistency. Brilliant one match, dire for teh next 6. He has improved it a bit under smith but still far from the likes of sean long for the last 10 years.

cooke may have been this "exceptional" player in a Hull side with little creativity but in comparison to other half backs in the NRL and SL he was average.

He's now below average BTW

I'm not understating his improtance to Hull. he was our main pivot, of course he was important. What I'm saying is that in SL and NRL terms he was/is easily replaceable. It's been the failing of successive coaches and the board which have meant we haven't done it effectively.

Thats what I mean when saying in 2004 we were on the verge of going to the next level consistantly and never.

Cooke became so important because we never gave him a supporting act in the attacking department. That may have been Brough in different circumstances.

Ok but just to clarify cos i think we're going round in circles here, Jake started by saying Cooke wasnt even an average player, we've since all agreed that actually he was a very good player for FC (exceptional imo) although as our only pivot we were one dimensional as a team and we've not replaced him. There's a consensus that as a player he is replaceable but we've just not managed to do it, i'd agree with that. All of the points above about been replaceable dont remove the fact though that for a 7 or 8 year period he was a top notch performer for us and was one of the main driving forces behind our success of the time.

Sorry Dave I jumped into the thread and was never replying to Jake saying Cooke wasnt even average!

My point is that although Cooke was a top player for Hull and became so important as our ONLY pivot we did have better options pre 2005 and should have developed the team differently from then.

Hope that clears up my angle anyhow....

Also I am not sure how many people belive Cooke was a 'top' performer for 7 or 8 years for Hull. I know certain Rovers fans who insisted he was garbage right up until 2004!

That is not my opinion BTW...

No doubt the same ones that held the view that Briscoe wasn't fit to lace cockaynes boots.

He wasn't at the time

Careful - we wouldn't want this thread drifting into a discussion of things relevant to Hull KR. 3.626953125:5