Just a bit of healthy debate + no scapegoating but anyone else thought he was poor yesterday.Apart from his run I thought his kicking + his posting were awful + at times he just strolled about.Imo he needs to take a leaf out of Kurt Gidley's book who never stops trying.Long way before he's in my all time Wire legends.

No

I agree he was. Put this on other thread earlier. Watched it back this morning. Why was Sandow up against there 6ft plus backs when they put in high kicks? For the first try he made a poor attempt to defend the kick, take a look at the look Atkins gives him, says it all.
.
For the second he should have anticipated the play better and dealt with the knock down ie smash Sneyd.

Appreciate it was a red hot day yesterday but we need get sandow a lot fitter than he currently is.

His defense is poor. He is small, but he often lacks the effort in defense. To his credit, he chases his kicks very well and makes good one-on-one tackles off the back of them.

That said: on days like yesterday his prowess in attack didn't outdo his frailty in defense like we needed.

Quite simply, the biggest enigma I've seen in a Wire jersey.

At times, the lad's unplayable, as was seen before the hamstring injury. Yesterday, in the biggest game of his life, it just seemed to pass him by. I know he has to have an outlay (at times, his team mates were playing banana rugby.....hanging around in bunches, so he had no outlay), but we need him to take the game by the scruff of the neck.

After yesterday, let's just say he owes us one (or two, or three.........)

No , Sandow is what Sandow is , chased down his kicks superbly , made some good tackles , he can't help being on the short side and weak under a high ball but , that's a trade off for the magic he can bring

Spot on.For the record am not doubting his ability but I want to see him torment players with darting runs like Burrow did in his prime for Leeds.

Firstly, he's nowhere near where he was before the injury.

I didn't put anything in here last week, but I was pretty ed off at him at the end of the game, he missed the first drop goal attempt which was fine, but the next time we were up there in good position, instead of going for the kick, he decided to run out to the right centre, wasn't under particular pressure just seemed like he wanted to do that, then on the next tackle or so he did it again, And we handed the ball over.

Then the next time we went down there he had his second attempt which was pretty half d,

It's a worry, having set such high standards earlier this year it's certainly a worry.

He's a luxury player who looks great when things are going well and goes missing when they're not. If he was consistently good he'd be playing in the NRL still

If Currie had scored that try you would never have raised the subject. The answer is NO.

But he didn't score that try, and even if he did all that has been said above would still be valid. Of course nobody is going to want to talk about the negatives of the team/performance/players after winning the cup. We didn't win the cup though, and it's logical to discuss various aspects of why and how our star players factor into that.

Absolute Bull.I'd have still debated it even if we'd have won.

I've not watched it back yet but I didn't have a problem with Sandow apart from the drop goal that wasn't taken before half time.
Regarding Gidley though a couple of us commented that we thought he had a hamstring issue from before the missed penalty, and with the conversion attempt after the Currie try he was short which adds to my belief that there was an issue that was hidden to us fans but kept in-camp.
I don't think Gidley wasn't as influential as usual but we still missed him (and Bennie) when he went off.

Totally agree with you and Wire on this subject. Whilst I'm not disappointed in Sandow overall, he is a great asset, I was hoping for a match winning, big game performance yesterday and we didn't get that and I don't think that it was all down to Hull FC.

There are of course contributory factors, his team mates not always giving him options as Lefty has said, Gidley going off so team organisation diminishing (may be part of the same deal) and yesterday in the second half on last plays he wasn't always on the ball

No, he wasn't, in fact his kicking in the first half was exceptional and he outdid Sneyd in that department. The only fault I found in him was his total disinterest in challenging for that kick to the corner, he just stood there and tried to push Fonua off the ball. I mean, he probably wouldn't have had the height to out jump the guy anyway but at least in the air he had more of a chance at putting him off. But aside from that I thought he created quite a bit of space for the likes of Currie to make something of and he was enthusiastic as ever at chasing down his own kicks.

A game of two halves for me. Great team performance and Sandow was my man of the match up to half time, second half he was very average but thought the whole team were even though they all put 100% in, because we were on the back foot a bit. Thought we totally lost direction once Gidley went off.

For the sake of 3 points Sandow & the rest would have been world beaters,

This

I sometimes think that certain fans would only be happy if we had a team of supermen who never made any mistakes and always dominated their opposite numbers. All I ask of any team I support is commitment and for me that's what all of the players from both teams delivered yesterday. If I could have done better I may have the right to criticise but I couldn't and therefore I won't.

Agree 100%.

Looks like an attempt at scapegoating to me. It was a fantastic match, he should not have to contest high kicks, someone had to lose, this time it was us.
My thought is this will strengthen our bid for OT. I'm not saying we will win it, but will make us stronger.

Sorry Silver but that's quite a ridiculous statement.

First of all I think that people don't expect 100% mistake free performances it's what makes sport, sport? It's what you do after a mistake and how you and the team cope that matters, whether lessons are learned . I didn't think that the OP was that derogatory just a question asking for opinion, did Sandow have a bad day at the office and if so why? Some have stated yes others no, each is as valid it's an opinion

As for having the right to criticise, well I'll leave that to you as it would shut down any form of debate. I don't think that this forum is that vicious, but, in any event turning it into rugby league's answer to the Stepford Wives isn't my idea of fun. We pretty much all agree he has the talent, so the question remains how can he and we as a team benefit most?

He was pretty anonymous in the 2nd half and his attacking kicks were poor. I commented on this during the game when I thought we were going to win so not scapegoating.

On the second point we have lost 2 GFs. The first loss didn't seem to strengthen us for the 2nd, so not sure why this loss will.

When all said and done we were 10 points up with 20 to go, then 4 points up with 7 minutes to go and blew it. A real shame as each player put their all in.

Hull deserved to win, especially with the route they took to get there.

thanks for that, yes we did it the hard way, imo sandow had a decent game, and every game we have played you this year has gone down to the wire, pardon the pun, that to me says theres nowt in the 2 teams, your supporters where great well done,

Game of two halfs, you won the floor and offloads in the first so Sandow looked great as he had time, Sneyd was poor, total opposite in the 2nd half.

Hard to play behind a beaten pack.