WWW.RLFANS.COM

Posted: **Sat Mar 07, 2009 8:58 am**

Ivor C&G Scarf wrote:

How many people prefer Brown and/or Robinson to Thorman now? He outplayed the both of them put together.

I dissagree.

Our back line, with the exception of Fatz once he went to look for work, were terrible

Our halves were ok. Just.

Our pack was like Jeckyl and Hyde, some were superb (Raleigh should have been MoM) others were noticibly below standard

Hooking was a disaster and thats where a lot of our problems actually occured.

Posted: **Sat Mar 07, 2009 9:00 am**

Code13 wrote:

Only because we kept giving you the ball with absolutely no preassure to do so from your players.

(there was probably only one or two passes we dropped lasnt night due to preassure defence, everything else we spilled was our own ineptitude.)

I disagree. I thought Hull's intensity in defence forced you to try and move the ball early in the tackle count resulting in many of the errors. Hull were also guilty of some poor ball control and I expect the completion rates weren't that far apart. It was a typical early season game.

Posted: **Sat Mar 07, 2009 9:03 am**

Ivor C&G Scarf wrote:

Without naming all the individuals who were awful, DG's piece says it all for me.

How many people prefer Brown and/or Robinson to Thorman now? He outplayed the both of them put together.

The only players to come out with any credit for me are Mason, Raleigh, and Lolesi with possibly Moore as well.

You're stretching the truth a bit there. Thorman wasn't a standout performer for Hull. Robinson played half decent, and Moore looked quite dangerous at times for Huddersfield. And it wasn't Brown or Robinson throwing hospital passes and dropping ball all over the place. What's the point of going on about Thorman now when he's a Hull player and Sharp was sacked months ago? Get over it man.

Yes, we were very poor. Hull dominated and deserved to win. But looking for positives; Hull were really pleased with their defense yet it was still 4 tries apiece. To play as badly as that and only lose by 4 points is a minor miracle.

Posted: **Sat Mar 07, 2009 9:04 am**

Jake the Peg wrote:

I disagree. I thought Hull's intensity in defence forced you to try and move the ball early in the tackle count resulting in many of the errors. Hull were also guilty of some poor ball control and I expect the completion rates weren't that far apart. It was a typical early season game.

Have you watched it on TV yet mate? Honestly, there were LOTS of unforced errors. But that's not to say Hull didn't deserve the win; they did.

Posted: **Sat Mar 07, 2009 9:20 am**

I thought both teams looked strong last night, FC deserved the victory for simply being more composed with the ball. I think if Huddersfield had valued the ball in hand more the result could have gone the other way, but they didn’t and FC deserved victory. Two strong teams this year…

Posted: **Sat Mar 07, 2009 9:25 am**

Jake the Peg wrote:

I disagree. I thought Hull's intensity in defence forced you to try and move the ball early in the tackle count resulting in many of the errors. Hull were also guilty of some poor ball control and I expect the completion rates weren't that far apart. It was a typical early season game.

Hull's defence was good but to suggest the frankly stupid passes we tried were down to you is ridiculous. The Hodgson to Aspers one for example was totally unnecessary, no pressure at all, a poor pass and led straight on to a Hull try.

Considering how bad we were to score 4 tries each is surprising.

Posted: **Sat Mar 07, 2009 9:27 am**

Danril wrote:

Considering how bad we were to score 4 tries each is surprising.

Better ball control and there is no doubt in my mind you would have won that game.

Posted: **Sat Mar 07, 2009 9:31 am**

Code13 wrote:

Only because we kept giving you the ball with absolutely no preassure to do so from your players.

(there was probably only one or two passes we dropped lasnt night due to preassure defence, everything else we spilled was our own ineptitude.)

Personally thought our forwards battered yours last night.

Posted: **Sat Mar 07, 2009 9:33 am**

Danril wrote:

Hull's defence was good but to suggest the frankly stupid passes we tried were down to you is ridiculous. The Hodgson to Aspers one for example was totally unnecessary, no pressure at all, a poor pass and led straight on to a Hull try.

Considering how bad we were to score 4 tries each is surprising.

The pressure comes from getting nowhere running it down the middle. It forces teams to try and move the ball about more, resulting in risky passing and errors. If you'd played the game to a good standard you'd know what pressure an enveloping defence puts on you and what it results in. Still, I don't mind if you disagree as the 2 points are all that matters and most of the teams we've played this season seem to be making lots of "unforced" erorrs. May be a pattern emerging :wink:

Posted: **Sat Mar 07, 2009 9:37 am**

Hull won the game because they got the basics right. They gave away virtually no penalties and made hardly any handling errors and took their chances well. A bad day at the office for the Giants but they weren't too far away from beating a decent side. Still early days and I'm confident the Giants can bounce back and still finish top eight.

WWW.RLFANS.COM

OMG