Chris Dalton wrote:
I'll tell you why. Because these two have been retained and others haven't. And I think describing Coyle as strong in any position is going too far. He's not good enough. Hulme was being played out of position at full back, something we've done in the past o the likes of Grady and Myler. We never gave him a shot at scrum half.
Coyle isn't "far better" than my nan quite frankly. He has so many bad days you'd think we'd have gotten the picture by now.
I had an interesting conversation with an anonymous Widnes fan at Jellybeans yesterday. We were both wearing our garb!!!
He was fumin, but offered a decent explanation.
His thoughts were that Gore and Gilmore are our future halfbacks! That these two lads will be playing regular football together in the next two - three years and that we have a formidable partnership on our hands. The hunt is still underway for the SH we have been after for a while and a hooker. The problem we have with Danny is that these are his positions. Craven is a better fullback and a better option at stand-off (not hard as you say because Hulme isn't a fullback) but he was making the point that we have a lot of options.
Hulme will be a very good player in this league but the young players we do have signed could be fantastic talents in SL.
When you add into the argument the fact that Hulme will be unavailable for 1 year and is still undecided about whether he want's a full time career in RL then it makes it all a little more understandable.
As for Coyle, if he had kept up his performances that we had seen him capable of early part of the season in the last three or four games I don't think there would be too much argument with him. His lack of recent form has coincided with the teams recent bad run.