: Sat Aug 01, 2009 2:55 pm  

tim791 wrote:

He would walk into your starting pack.

In your dreams he would.

He'd be on the bench if he was a Bulls player, our strongest back row of Morrison, Menzies and Langley would make sure of that.

: Sat Aug 01, 2009 2:59 pm  

Terry Monster wrote:

In your dreams he would.

He'd be on the bench if he was a Bulls player, our strongest back row of Morrison, Menzies and Langley would make sure of that.

Langley's had one good game all year. Purdham is a much better player.

: Sat Aug 01, 2009 3:01 pm  

DILLIGAF wrote:

Langley's had one good game all year. Purdham is a much better player.

Agreed, a straight swap, Langers for Purdham thanks

: Sat Aug 01, 2009 3:08 pm  

DILLIGAF wrote:

Langley's had one good game all year. Purdham is a much better player.

Not in a million years.

Langley has had numerous good games. It's because he doesn't do the Hollywood stuff that people get on his back.

: Sat Aug 01, 2009 3:11 pm  

Terry Monster wrote:

Not in a million years.

Langley has had numerous good games. It's because he doesn't do the Hollywood stuff that people get on his back.

In the same way that Sykes is slated for his bad defence, Langley is rightly slated for his bad attack.

Why do players who attack well but can't defend get more criticism than those that defend well but offer nothing in attack?

Purdham offers both. Hence, better player.

I'll never criticise Langley's defence as it is always very good. However he is next to useless when we have the ball these days. Purdham is a tackling machine as well as a dangerous attacking player.

: Sat Aug 01, 2009 4:22 pm  

I'd swap Purdham for Langley

: Sat Aug 01, 2009 4:51 pm  

DILLIGAF wrote:

In the same way that Sykes is slated for his bad defence, Langley is rightly slated for his bad attack.

Why do players who attack well but can't defend get more criticism than those that defend well but offer nothing in attack?

Purdham offers both. Hence, better player.

I'll never criticise Langley's defence as it is always very good. However he is next to useless when we have the ball these days. Purdham is a tackling machine as well as a dangerous attacking player.

I don't know probably because the effects of poor defence is usually more critical than poor attack.

He doesn't have bad attack, he makes a hell of a lot of ground and carries the ball shed loads of times. If making lot's of ground when carrying the ball is poor attack then then I'm chinese.

Langley makes more ground and more tackles - Hence why he is the better player.

I think Purdham is just an average Joe.

: Sat Aug 01, 2009 7:19 pm  

Terry Monster wrote:

I don't know probably because the effects of poor defence is usually more critical than poor attack.

He doesn't have bad attack, he makes a hell of a lot of ground and carries the ball shed loads of times. If making lot's of ground when carrying the ball is poor attack then then I'm chinese.

Langley makes more ground and more tackles - Hence why he is the better player.

I think Purdham is just an average Joe.

Purdham is a much better player than Langley, he's a better tackler, hes a better ball skills, he can open up gaps.
And he can kick goals, and is currently the best on average conversion taker in super league.

: Sat Aug 01, 2009 8:14 pm  

I would take Purdham at the Bulls, if the opportunity arose. No brainer.

: Sat Aug 01, 2009 8:15 pm  

Adeybull wrote:

I would take Purdham at the Bulls, if the opportunity arose. No brainer.

Can he play scrum half?