Re: 17 For Hull : Fri Feb 05, 2016 11:51 am  

I understand what you're saying but I think we should be selecting a team on current form not what we know they can do when on form. Like I say I'm in the minority of one but I'd happily start with O'Brien tonight. To be fair I'm an Evalds fan so won't complain whatsoever if he plays. Hasn't he started both our friendlies now with Evalds on the bench? Maybe that was just to see if he could cut it as FB cover. Like I say, I'm happy either way and of course I see Evalds as our number 1 for many years I just really liked what I saw against Wigan.

Re: 17 For Hull : Fri Feb 05, 2016 4:17 pm  

We got enough in the forwards to beat hull, the pack is massive and I think we have 2 that are big enough to compete with there's Murdoch Massila ans Kopczak, the 2nd rows might be a different story. Be interesting battle and who he selects.

Re: 17 For Hull : Fri Feb 05, 2016 5:05 pm  

I'm not expecting a victory here tonight however if we can stay competitive that'll do me. A heavy margined defeat will be a very disappointing outcome and a strong indication of a typically long season. So Please Reds lets keep it competitive.

Re: 17 For Hull : Fri Feb 05, 2016 6:28 pm  

We know you have an odd view of the world Flat Stanley but just what is a "heavy marginal defeat"?

Re: 17 For Hull : Fri Feb 05, 2016 6:57 pm  

O'Brien is at FB just like i said.

Re: 17 For Hull : Fri Feb 05, 2016 7:06 pm  

Tomkins and Evalds on the bench gamble?

Re: 17 For Hull : Fri Feb 05, 2016 8:48 pm  

You'll beat us in the backs lads!! Haha

Re: 17 For Hull : Fri Feb 05, 2016 9:08 pm  

Seasons over already ....

Bring back Phil Veivers

Re: 17 For Hull : Fri Feb 05, 2016 9:18 pm  

Well you liked a rabbit in headlights tonight. Battered I think is the word

Re: 17 For Hull : Fri Feb 05, 2016 9:19 pm  

1