: Thu Feb 26, 2009 11:13 am  

Gordon Gekko wrote:

You're way too sensible for these boards and you won't fit in with the clique with comments like that.

put berrigan at full back he was fantastic cover there in last match of season against quins and put lee at hooker and houghton on bench

: Thu Feb 26, 2009 11:33 am  

PAUL M wrote:

Eh

OKay then to spell it out, Lee is purely a squad player although with the options we have I don't see him getting much gametime. However as we are waiting for two players to come over and with the injuries we already have to Motu, Byrne, Washy, Whiting and King then it would be wise to keep hold of Lee for a little while longer.

I just don't see a future for Lee at Hull.

I may be laughed at, but I wonder how he would go at full back?

If rumours with Motu and Byrne have any truth, we could get found out. I would hate to see us having to move Thorman there, because of lack of cover.

: Thu Feb 26, 2009 11:50 am  

Big Dave T wrote:

Interesting debate isnt it, do we want our bench players to cover in case of injuries or do we want them to bring impact like is required in the modern game most of the time.

Personally i would go for Houghton out of the 2. He gives the impact needed and should he be needed to cover other positions he can do. (or Berrigan can be moved as a last resort)

I actually would personally not play an interchange hooker as Berrigan plays 80 but thats just me. I would have a bench of Thacks, Lauaki, Manu and Burnett/G Horne if all players were fit.

Agreed, this is an interesting debate, and one we possibly couldn't have had without the injury crisis last year. Man of our young players got more superleague and big match exposure last season than would have been the case without all the injuries. The great thing now is that the coaches and us as fans in our discussions can have informed debates about their relative merits, rather than feeling like we're going with unknown quantities. Again, bodes well for the long term future. Also agree that I wouldn't like to see Thorman at Full-back- he's performing too well in the halves.

As for the fullback role, I may live to eat my words, but I've seen a lot of Catalans in the last couple of seasons and they tend to prefer the grubber kick rather than the high ball. The full-back for Friday therefore needs to be a good sweeper and organiser.

: Thu Feb 26, 2009 11:56 am  

bestgameofall wrote:

Agreed, this is an interesting debate, and one we possibly couldn't have had without the injury crisis last year. Man of our young players got more superleague and big match exposure last season than would have been the case without all the injuries. The great thing now is that the coaches and us as fans in our discussions can have informed debates about their relative merits, rather than feeling like we're going with unknown quantities. Again, bodes well for the long term future. Also agree that I wouldn't like to see Thorman at Full-back- he's performing too well in the halves.

As for the fullback role, I may live to eat my words, but I've seen a lot of Catalans in the last couple of seasons and they tend to prefer the grubber kick rather than the high ball. The full-back for Friday therefore needs to be a good sweeper and organiser.

Although his organising qualities are somewhat untried, its every rugby players job on the pitch to communicate to the line regarding postioning, when to pull or push etc, so its not as if the communicating aspect will be foreigh to him. Also, i think his ability at picking up the loose balls is very good, he has fantastic hands, and would feel more comfortable with him fielding the grubber than the high kick.

: Thu Feb 26, 2009 11:56 am  

Big Dave T wrote:

Interesting debate isnt it, do we want our bench players to cover in case of injuries or do we want them to bring impact like is required in the modern game most of the time.

Personally i would go for Houghton out of the 2. He gives the impact needed and should he be needed to cover other positions he can do. (or Berrigan can be moved as a last resort)

I actually would personally not play an interchange hooker as Berrigan plays 80 but thats just me. I would have a bench of Thacks, Lauaki, Manu and Burnett/G Horne if all players were fit.

IMO, its more about maintaining a level of team performance, so 2 props and a 2nd row plus a utility player would be an ideal. I wouldn't have an out and out hooker on the bench unless there was a chance that the guy there couldn't do 80 minutes. Lee can cover hooker but he can also cover the back row and half back and probably even centre so he adds more value to the 17 shirt. For that reason the only change I'd make to your bench is Lee. On the other hand if Washbrook isn't starting he would do the same job but with bells on.

: Thu Feb 26, 2009 2:11 pm  

Monday morning coach wrote:

If we are talking about bench spots and Berrigan is fit I'd pick Lee in front of Houghton because he offers more options coming off the bench, coving more positions for injuries and spelling.

Although a sound suggestion, I still feel it's playing the percentages and feel we must go for impact with Hougton at hooker, who knows Berro could get injured (God forbid).

: Thu Feb 26, 2009 2:21 pm  

I'd be tempted to keep Berrigan on for full 80 minutes, bring Houghton and put Berrigan at Loose forward.

: Thu Feb 26, 2009 2:31 pm  

Dave K. wrote:

I'd be tempted to keep Berrigan on for full 80 minutes, bring Houghton and put Berrigan at Loose forward.

good call, if that was the case would you go with a bench of 3 forwards (one being Houghton) 1 back?

: Thu Feb 26, 2009 2:34 pm  

2 props
1 back rower
1 hooker

: Thu Feb 26, 2009 2:36 pm  

Holty wrote:

good call, if that was the case would you go with a bench of 3 forwards (one being Houghton) 1 back?

We have no backs to go on the bench they are all playing or injured.

No I would stick with Manu. Thacks, King and Houghton.

Worst case we could put Berrigan in the backs, would try and avoid this at all costs though.