: Tue Jun 09, 2009 5:09 pm  

Rogues Gallery wrote:

Do you think that you can afford to lose Long and Cunningham at the same time?

Yes.

: Tue Jun 09, 2009 5:38 pm  

McClennan wrote:

Yes.

Loving the avatar

: Tue Jun 09, 2009 7:44 pm  

Looking at Moores stats from Friday.

5 missed tackles and 3 handling errors, and that's not uncommon for him.

I really don't think you can replace Long and KC at the same time, but I was told earlier in the year that KC was finishing playing at the end of 2009.

: Tue Jun 09, 2009 7:50 pm  

Rogues Gallery wrote:

Looking at Moores stats from Friday.

5 missed tackles and 3 handling errors, and that's not uncommon for him.

I really don't think you can replace Long and KC at the same time, but I was told earlier in the year that KC was finishing playing at the end of 2009.

He isn't the finished article yet, there's no doubt. Losing Long and KC in one go is going to be very tough on us, that said i don't see us dropping below 4th if we can get another big prop or two in.

: Tue Jun 09, 2009 7:55 pm  

Rogues Gallery wrote:

Looking at Moores stats from Friday.

5 missed tackles and 3 handling errors, and that's not uncommon for him.

I really don't think you can replace Long and KC at the same time, but I was told earlier in the year that KC was finishing playing at the end of 2009.

Scott Moore is still a better player than Riddell, your young irish hooker and is making more impact at hooker for Huddersfiel than Tomkins is making at Stand off for you guys.

You worry about yourselfs. Once again your trailing behind the super S!

: Tue Jun 09, 2009 8:03 pm  

Ashmeister wrote:

Scott Moore is still a better player than Riddell, your young irish hooker and is making more impact at hooker for Huddersfiel than Tomkins is making at Stand off for you guys.

You worry about yourselfs. Once again your trailing behind the super S!

Who would that be?

McIlorum is still at Wigan isn't he?

Tomkins is doing fine and much better than Eastmond is at Saints.

: Tue Jun 09, 2009 8:08 pm  

Rogues Gallery wrote:

Who would that be?

McIlorum is still at Wigan isn't he?

Tomkins is doing fine and much better than Eastmond is at Saints.

I assume he means Mossop (who isnt a hooker) its best to get your facts right when taking the micheal out of someones team

: Tue Jun 09, 2009 8:10 pm  

Saint Simon wrote:

I assume he means Mossop (who isnt a hooker) its best to get your facts right when taking the micheal out of someones team

That's how I read it, but reading it again maybe he doesn't. I guess grammar is not his strong point.

: Tue Jun 09, 2009 8:16 pm  

I think he's saying that not only is Moore better than Riddell and McIlorum, he's also making more of an impact at Huddersfield than Tomkins is at Wigan.

That last comparison is a bit bizarre though.

Tomkins would be making more of an impact at Wigan than Eastmond is at Saints though, both your half backs are p1ss poor

: Tue Jun 09, 2009 8:53 pm  

[quote="Billinge_Lump"]I think he's saying that not only is Moore better than Riddell and McIlorum, he's also making more of an impact at Huddersfield than Tomkins is at Wigan.

That last comparison is a bit bizarre though.