Very good, but you're supposed to be arguing [iagainst[/i

Oh go on, then, let's have a "knock McAvoy" session



So if I read you right, your logic is that if Noble would sign someone who is a crap as you think McAvoy is, this explains why he would sign someone as crap as you think Karl is. Basically?

McAvoy's perhaps lazy style upset a lot of people, but he was a classy player and did fine for us without claiming he was great. he certainly did a job. In his first spell with us he socred I think over 50 tries in less than 100 games. Didn't score much in his second spell as I recall but I thought overall did a decent enough job for what we signed him for. He was a member of the teams that won a Challenge Cup and a Grand Final for us. And yes, there was "that" legendary chip.



Shame if people want to knock ANY player out of that squad, really.

I don't think he deserves to be maligned, and deffo not used as the proof that Noble signed crap players, he ceratinly is no example of that. in fact, the record would seem to prove that he did the jobs Noble signed him to do each time.

Was it Tony Smith who signed him for Leeds at the back end of his career before Noble picked him up for the pies? Is Smith a poor judge too?

Must be

Fair enough, Smith's a useless mug.

Can I quote that fact on the various "how I wish we had as brilliant a coach as Smith to transform our team like Warrington" threads?

Noble didn't sign McAvoy first time around, it was Matthew Elliott. We paid £140,000 IIRC.

But if he was any sort of a judge Nobby would have drummed McAvoy out of the ground at the first opportunity though.

Plus this proves Elliott was a crap judge too, I reckon.

It was in June 1998.

Everybody's allowed one mistake. How many times did Elliott and Smith sign him? Just once.

Everybody's allowed one mistake. How many times did Elliott and Smith sign him? Just once.

Oh the irony.

Have I started a "What have the Romans ever done for us" thread?

Did you like it