No-one was happy with Mose's physical condition when he arrived. However, there were at least some mitigating factors.

It is true to say his first five matches were not exceptional. But considering his weight we really couldn't expect much.

Given that we lost Amor & Walmsley relatively early Mose really had no place to hide. And he didn't. He got his weight under control. His performances steadily improved (by the end of the season his physique was unrecognisable). From one-third of the season in he was doing precisely the job Brown brought him in to do - short stints as an impact forward. He WAS NOT bought to do thirty five minute stretches. He WAS bought to break up the opposition defence in focused bursts. That said, on several occasions Mose DID play extended stretches. And he didn't do badly at all. Indeed, for at least ten matches Mose really was about the only bulky prop we could muster.

You can bash Mose all you like for not being [uYOUR TYPE[/u of forward. The point is - he [uWAS NEVER BOUGHT TO BE SUCH[/u.

And if you think you are having fun with me now - you'd better up your typing speed next season hacking out all those [i"BELIEVE ME! We're much better off without Mose"[/i retorts.

Not overly interested in a slanging match on here, but Mose is a joke. The usual 7-8 min spells for a full time professional are an embarrassment & often even these spells arent that effective. IMO he puts far too much pressure on the shoulders of Amor & AW. I commented myself at the Hull game he was stood in the centres during his very brief second spell which is why he carries the ball so infrequently. I wouldn't shed any tears if he was suitably replaced tomorrow - the fact is when were in an arm wrestle & it's back against the wall he goes missing more often than not, and despite being on his knees AW was brought back on after 7 mins yesterday when the game was in the balance - Speaks volumes that.
People talk about impact, 6-7 mins in 40 minutes a half with us having possibly 3-4 sets of six during that time, give me a break. I for one could live without those 4 carries a game for another solid tough front rower.

Fortunately there exists a healthy group of fans whose knees don't hyperextend at the slightltest kiss of a pollen grain.

I can't predict Mose's future - but I do know he isn't responsible for all but two forwards' uncharacteristically poor performance yesterday.

These lads are professionals, after all.

However, we should probably cut ALL OF THEM some slack after a hard Easter.

I,ve said many times last season and this season that this club does not know how to use Mose correctly.
He is an IMPACT prop and should be used as such, we seem to be giving him very poor quality ball with very little depth, we use him as a decoy runner, on many occasions we switch play away from him.
If you look at some of the old NRL and International footage he is used differently.

One of the biggest problems is the absence of all of our creative players this means all our set plays have dried up and we are struggling with second phase, this has negated any Mose effect on his short stints on the pitch. He,s too lazy to be a hard working prop, maybe KC has asked him to more hard yards.....I don,t know.

Also Amor is a worry at the moment, he is in very poor form, hard working yes but he is easily dominated and his offloads have suffered, he misses quite a lot tackles now, it makes you wonder if he is playing with an injury.

Sorry Mugwamp but I agree with St Pete on Mose. I think he's a potential game changer when he wants to be, but those moments are few and far between. Fact is, he's lazy and doesn't do enough for his team. I don't care about stats, I know what I can see most games...a player who stands in the background whilst others try and drive the ball up out of their twenty. A player who always seems to be 3rd in the tackle when the job is done.

My opinion has nothing to do with us being on a 3 match losing run. I know that run is down to injuries to key playmakers.

Richards had a howler against Wigan, but he's got heart and the crowd can see it. Thompson & Amor are others I also refuse to criticise because they've also clearly got heart. Mose's on holiday which is a shame because he's brilliant when he wants to be.

Exactly my views on him. Maybe Im a little more critical because I know he can be a good player but he chooses to be lazy.

Amor isn't plsying great at the moment, I think most will agree on this but he gives 100% every single week so can't really call him.

Same goes with sav, Richards and Thompson, they haven't set the world on fire this season and probably not kicked on how we expected but again the effort is there and you can't knock that.

Id want nothing more to see Mose causing destruction on the field. He's a big jolly likeable guy but that can't hide the fact he's letting himself down, the fans down and more importantly his mates on the field, exotically the likes of walmsley and Amor.

Seems most posters in this thread are the "easily lead" you talk of. Most see Mose in the same light as me.

You can get your stats all you like but they don't tell the whole story of how a player as played.

Do you go the games ?

I do go to the games and the criticism of Masoe is unfair and incorrect. Stats aren't everything, but there is something to be learned from them. And even if some of his tackles are second or third man, surely that applies to all players...unless in this one eyed world, every body else is always first into the tackle and Masoe is always third.

Yes, he probably spends less time on the field and makes less carries and tackles across a season. But as has been pointed out, his role is not one of a grinding prop, just trundling in to make four or five metres a time. His is there to do other things. Also, he worked hard during a period of the game at Wigan to keep pressure on the pie gobblers in the mud. Both Amor and Walmsley are very good props although Amor isn't playing anywhere near his potential.

Its easy to pick on isolated moments to criticise a player. I like Makinson tremendously but what good was his 'heart' when he looked like Radlinski when stepped for their try.....see easy. And Richards at Wigan....all 'heart' but alas, no skill....or composure....or technique....or execution. See Easy....again.

I said earlier that I thought he put a shift in tackling but his attack seemed dulled. But in the end, the stats are important.

Yes he can be 3rd man in, but also second and first and over the weekend he was doing some tackles closing the gap. He sometimes hits and bounces too, so is the first and 3rd man in.

I would certainly not say that his efforts were a causal factor in the loss/es. It was the lack of a half was the reason we lost. For me in all 3 games the pack has done the job, but the backs are shot to pieces. In the end we have 2 primary wingers playing in position. 1 Primary winger on Monday. When you have second, third and fourth string people covering positions in the backs, it is going to dull the attacking edge.

I prefer heart and no skill to no heart and no skill.


He's bone idle lazy, Simple as that.

A prop has got to do the hard yards, drive their team on and provide a platform for the backs to do their stuff. A brilliant hard tackle or a good driving run can swing the momentum for your team.

The sign of a really good prop (and indeed any player) however is if they're hated by opposition fans and loved by their own. Who's got a real nasty edge, who's niggly, who causes the opposition players to lose their own focus and engage in mini battles with him.

Our props have the qualities in the 1st paragraph above...but when we bought Masoe, I think we all hoped/expected him to bring the kind of qualities I'm talking about in the 2nd paragraph.

Masoe is capable of much much more. It's no good doing it once every few games.

bring your boots on Sunday....it seems that will rectify all our problems

Total e again. Dont expect much different mind.

I see the debate has gone again and it's back to personal insults. Can people not post a view point without having a go.

I think the phrase is called playing the ball not the man,

Mose is a devisive player. Half of my friends think he's a lazy bugger, half (i'm fall on this side) say he's generally badly used. We knew what we were getting, and a 60 min energised, 40 tackle a game prop it wasn't. A player who on occasion can completely change a game on his own by single handedly destroying an opposition pack is what he is. Doesnt happen every week, and if we ask him to do much more than 30 mins a game it wont happen at all.

Exactly, I,ve seen loads of instances were he comes charging in from deep the opposition players come across but Roby or the halves switch play to the other side. We also use to see Mose take a short ball turn his back into the opposition and offload into second phase that tactic is now stopped.
So in my opinion its the coaching staff and player options that are partially to blame, we don't do enough set plays with Mose, giving him flat balls with the opposition quickly on him is a completely waste of time. If Mose doen't work to a technical plan then you get a lazy Mose most of the time.
Sometimes the club is not very good at getting the best out of players, we did it with Shenton years back and turned him into an average player, the way we used Lance was another one, and there are others.

Mose wasn't brought for his defence, he was brought to cause utter carnage in 20 min spells (mainly with the ball). His defence around the legs is very good for such a big guy, I actully use Mose as example to the big lads in the team i coach.

I agree he was brought in as a impact player and a player that can give you momentem when he comes on the field (like his first spell on good friday) but 70% of the time he offers no impact at all, some games his spell lasts 10 mins or less in which he hardly takes a carry. He shouid be pushing Amor to the side telling him this is my ball but he's now lingering 4 men out from the PTB and puts himself in a positon thst he can't get the ball.

Imo when he's good he's very good but when he's bad, he's awful. One game last year, he did 6 carries and often just about makes double figures. For me that's not good enough from what we consider as a top end prop.

I've heard everyone make excuses for him like - he's not fit because of injury. Wait until the dry ground. Brown doesn't know how to use him. KC doesn't know how to use him. We deliberately don't let him take drives. We don't want him takibg a carry in our own 20m zone. Teans gang up on him.

Jesus! It's everyone's fault apart from his own!

I thought he did really well against Wigan on Friday, and the game really swung our way when he was on. If we had anyone with any creativity or guile on the park we would have won comprehensively.

He was anonymous on Monday, but like the rest of the pack looked completely knackered.

I have no thoughts on Mose as a player. However the discussions shows a flaw in our game when a player is only seen as being able to play a maximum of 30 minutes of an 80 minutes match. The sooner the number of interchanges is reduced the better so that the big guys become tired and those with speed and skill can exploit the situation.

The effectiveness of Mose has, like a lot of other things, decreased with our struggle to put effective half backs onto the pitch.

What an odd thing to say. Our league is enough of a joke defensively already without weakening it even more. Besides, how much 'skill' does it take to (using your word) exploit a tired big man? Surely if they were as skillfil as you thought they were, they could produce when the defence has energy and intensity. That's the way I'd like to see it, with you needing to be at your very best to score or create a try. Why would you want to see them get an easy ride? Especially when it seems like that's what your problem is with 'big men' in general, that they have it too easy? Bizarre.

Perhaps far too many people are concentrating on the literal meaning of Cunningham's words. He could quite easily be disappointed with the team - full stop - and the comment is purely a piece of motivational psychology meant to leave players wondering whether he's talking about them.

Not an odd thing at all. That's why we are reducing the interchanges. Good big men can do big minutes. This thread is about a player who some see as only able to play for 30 minutes if he is to be effective.

Exactly. Most people assume Mose because of what they saw with their own eyeSent presumably.
It seems to me that KC was talking in the plural but I don't think he meant the whole team somehow.

I wasn't at the game so who else assuming one was the big guy did he have in his sights?

Wish FM commentary just said Flanagan had a bollocking this week.