Be a shocking appointment on paper. Thought they would go after Rowley.

He'll get the respect off the players and has big contacts in nrl

Rowley is just like Watson salford is a free hit with no expectations punching above their weight when they do well

That's enough then, get him signed, doesn't matter about his coaching experience as he has a few mates in Australia.

Are you telling me you would rather have Sam Burgess as head coach at Hull rather than Paul Rowley?

The three loan players are all 20 and will all have turned 21 by the the middle of October. Between them, they’ve more than 20 games for SL clubs, plus bits and pieces on loan with Championship clubs. The academy players are 2 years younger and those are a big 2 years for development. While I assume you’ve intentionally confused academy products and academy players elsewhere, if you don’t understand why playing seven academy [uplayers[/u away at Wigan might be the taking the step from ‘brave’ to bonkers… maybe you’ve confused yourself more than anybody else?

The results wouldn’t have been different but the scores likely would have been. 64-6 and 74-12 were big enough margins. There used to be a Leeds fan who’d encourage us to bin off Ben Fisher to give Ben Kaye a chance - because, if we weren’t going to win a trophy, we shouldn’t worry too much about winning games and we might as well give young British players a chance. Almost like he didn’t have our best interests at the forefront of his mind.

When Hull shipped 60 against Wigan with a depleted side, with Walker, Simm and Longstaff on loan - would you really have wanted to include more teenagers than the three you had on the bench that day? Would being part of a team that shipped a potentially historic score have been good for their development? Even a year later, Smith deploys them only occasionally and cautiously.

It was 1 game which you clearly weren’t giving yourselves a chance of winning. You’ve just sent those 3 20 year olds onto the pitch like lambs to the slaughter and now sent them back to their clubs. Quite why their clubs agreed is beyond me.

We intended using Walker, Simm and Longstaff a hell of a lot more than 1 game and they did improve our team at the time. No comparison therefore?

That's right.I went to a few from Christopher Wren
Water splash final one of them.Our teacher put a bet on Wakefield.Would have won a tidy sum.At Black & White MinstrelShow he was seen in the bar drowning his sorrows!!
Happy innocent days indeed.

I don't understand why Rovers fans can't get that. Our loans where long term to cover injuries, there's are for one gane so they can rest people, a bit of a difference.

I guess for game time. We sent Milnes to play one game for Wakefield (also at Wigan) when they were in the middle of their really bad run. I agree it was a bit lambs to the slaughter - but maybe better than playing reserve level rugby at this point in their careers - and the option Dave suggests turns the same thing up to 11.

You needed loan players to cover injuries for a few games last year. We needed them for one game to help avoid injuries to the cup final squad and the MRP. The differences reflect circumstances rather than any particular difference in ethos or approach, imo.

Olly? Used to chat to him on Airlie St. end of Boulevard

But you said earlier that you get why we would rest most of our first 17, suggesting (extrapolating just slightly) that it isn’t unreasonable. Our need was short-term, hence short term deals were most appropriate.

Most yes, but could have either played a couple more first teasers or academy players.

You also have two players out on loan at Newcastle you could have called back, one played today, about as experienced as the lad from Warrington.

You haven't broke any rules, but I think it's poor what you have done and it could have been avoided.

You also had 4 players in your 21 who didn't make the 17, including Fishwick who has played a few first team ganes.

I think we ate done here MR, not sure we are going to agree on this and I respect you and your opinion (even if I don't agree

) to get into this anymore.

I probably would yeah burgess has worked under the best coaches in the world and would get the respect of the players which in this day and age with player power is what's needed

So can see why wire are going for something different

Rowley done ok but I've seen coaches at Salford flop at next bigger job as salford never have any real expectations

Rowley is a steady choice at best hasn't exactly set the world alight either !