Re: Wakefield (H) In Game.... : Thu Feb 21, 2013 3:25 am  

goonerrl wrote:

Saw David Hughes face after match, if looks could kill not a happy chappy.

Can't be true. He's deliberately running the club into the ground remember?




Does anyone know why Dixon was moved from FB to left hand wing?

Re: Wakefield (H) In Game.... : Thu Feb 21, 2013 8:44 am  

Rooster Booster wrote:

Does anyone know why Dixon was moved from FB to left hand wing?

Dixon has played 2, 1 and 5. At right centre, we've had Howell, Channing and O'Callaghan. Hurst has played 1, 2 and 4. At stand-off, we've had Witt, Dorn and Bailey. We have had 3 games.

I would say that the answer is something to do with Rea not having a clue what his best 1-6 looks like.

Re: Wakefield (H) In Game.... : Thu Feb 21, 2013 8:57 am  

Colly2 wrote:

Dixon has played 2, 1 and 5. At right centre, we've had Howell, Channing and O'Callaghan. Hurst has played 1, 2 and 4. At stand-off, we've had Witt, Dorn and Bailey. We have had 3 games.

I would say that the answer is something to do with Rea not having a clue what his best 1-6 looks like.

Fair enough. He moved during the game I noticed on the highlights package. Had he played poorly at FB in that game? Or just injuries causing a reshuffle?

Re: Wakefield (H) In Game.... : Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:12 am  

Rooster Booster wrote:

Fair enough. He moved during the game I noticed on the highlights package. Had he played poorly at FB in that game? Or just injuries causing a reshuffle?

Dixon's made a lot of errors this year, esp. at Huddersfield. I don't have a big problem with that as that will happen to a player who gets involved but I think that Rea then wanted to shield him once Robertson came back. However, I have no clue as to why Dixon was a left winger last year, then a right winger in pre-season/games 1 and 2, then a left winger in game 3. But I think Hurst, JOC and Lovell have had a much worse deal in terms of changing positions.

What annoys me is that these are developing players. If Rea isn't sure about his best line-up, move the experienced guys around and let the developing players develop in one position. This is a problem I had with Powell too.

Re: Wakefield (H) In Game.... : Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:27 am  

Colly2 wrote:

Dixon has played 2, 1 and 5. At right centre, we've had Howell, Channing and O'Callaghan. Hurst has played 1, 2 and 4. At stand-off, we've had Witt, Dorn and Bailey. We have had 3 games.

I would say that the answer is something to do with Rea not having a clue what his best 1-6 looks like.

Ah, now I understand, TR picks his team on a 'pick and mix' basis. Put the back line numbers in a bowl and draw them out at random. Explains a lot!

Re: Wakefield (H) In Game.... : Thu Feb 21, 2013 12:37 pm  

We noticed on Sunday that during the game Robertson played on both wings and at full back

Re: Wakefield (H) In Game.... : Thu Feb 21, 2013 1:32 pm  

Sarf Essex Taff wrote:

We noticed on Sunday that during the game Robertson played on both wings and at full back

It clearly is a new revolve-lutionary tactic, it is meant to confuse the opposition...................

Re: Wakefield (H) In Game.... : Thu Feb 21, 2013 2:09 pm  

poplar panther wrote:

It clearly is a new revolve-lutionary tactic, it is meant to confuse the opposition...................

As it happens, I don't think it's a stupid tactic to switch a couple of players dependent on the tackle count/field position etc. - that makes sense where someone might be a great kick returner but poor under the high ball. What I don't think works is when a switch involves several players.

Re: Wakefield (H) In Game.... : Fri Feb 22, 2013 2:51 am  

Colly2 wrote:

As it happens, I don't think it's a stupid tactic to switch a couple of players dependent on the tackle count/field position etc. - that makes sense where someone might be a great kick returner but poor under the high ball. What I don't think works is when a switch involves several players.

That's perfectly normal

Re: Wakefield (H) In Game.... : Fri Feb 22, 2013 4:00 am  

Rooster Booster wrote:

Can't be true. He's deliberately running the club into the ground remember?

Income since David Hughes took 100% control of the club has been static...as in we've received less from sponsors, fan revenue and corporates, the same from SKY/RFL and more from him every year.

Using the ₤9.85 income from every attendee at every match quoted by IL in 2006, the total reduction in income from ticket revenue alone between the end of 2008 and the end of 2012 was $370,000.

If this year continues with a 2,372 average, then he will have invested close to ₤200,000 more in 2012 than in 2008.......that's how badly the club is being run!

If you are saying this is a good business model, then you lose any credibility as a poster on the subject of the London Bronos RLFC off the field...the man is singlehandedly and narrow mindedly IMO running the club into oblivion.

Deliberately? Can't comment on that as I've never said it.