It will be a hard fought match, we must not take them lightly, and they are on a decent start too 4 points from 6.

The tackling at Bradford was addressed immediately by Agar and they look a lot better for it.

If our forwards can get on top them I think it will allow us to dominate the game, but we need to take the game on and not expect it easy, I get the impression Anderson will not allow or tolerate this form his team.

We've always actually had decent numbers at Wakey but as most of our fans usually stand down the sides the figure was taken from purely how many we had stood on the terrace behind the sticks, which wasn't very many as our fans were usually down both sides, someone took a picture of the side terrace a few years ago which was literally claret and gold all over to dispell the myth that we only had about 200 there that day - could have been Ponner not sure !

we tried telling the wakey lot for years that our fans were stood down the side but as that wasn't the 'away end' it was always dismissed by them...........as for the game it should be a great battle as i think they have got a very hardworking squad together this year and will upset a few of the big teams.
Looking forward to seeing how we can back Saturday up defensively this week.

Yes I took a photo a few years ago and the side was packed with claret and gold yet the Wakey fans said we'd only taken about 200.

Can you not repost the picture that you took Ponner? just to ram the comment back down their throats.

Got to be honest we normally stand either behind the posts or in the paddock area (when we lost in a monsoon)

No point, even when it was posted they still didnt accept it ....that wasnt the away end so it could have been anyone just wearing something that matched our colours that day or something equally as daft, if there were 35 people wearing claret & gold behind the sticks then that was our support end of !!!!.

And how many people just casually put "maroon" and "yellow" clothes on! Even last year they were claiming we took about 300 when the ticket office sold more tickets than that!

To be fair they had to eat their words last year - even the most anti-fartown ones had to hold their hands up and admit we brought a decent crowd, partially because it was a warm sunny day and a lot of our fans stood behind the sticks to be in the sun so more than usual were visible in that end.

Richard silverwood the man in the middle on Sunday.

Baloney.

We know that the Hudds fans stand near the side, and the reason we admitted you brought a decent crowd was because you did.... the first in many years and it's good to see.

We are better to a man from 1 right through the squad than wakefield. The only player I could say I'd possibly take and swap is kirmond on the bench for cording. But we have been there before and look how that turned out.
Should be a comfortable win but as ever, whenever we go there, I am nervous.

Actually you're not better man for man, what nonsense. Anderson would take Smith, Kirmond as he's playing now, Poore, Aiton and Amor all day long and most would find their ay into your first team so give over.

However you are certainly the better team both on form and on paper, by how much I'd suggest we decide around August. You are far more seasoned as a unit than we are and thus quicker in most aspects of the game. For me you will just be too well organised for us at this point in the season.

I really like the style of play you have adopted, to stuff Saints at their own game - hats off to you.

I'm hoping to contain you, a victory would be great but so long as it isn't a blown out scoreline I'll be happy. You're by far the best team we have played to date and that isn't easy to say.

Spot on.

Hudds fans can say what they want but their visiting support to BV in the past has been simply dreadful - the worst Yorkshire club and only marginally better than Salford.

However last year was a revelation - not just the number but loads of noise and colour - really enjoyed it (apart from the result). Do that again and I for one will happily recognise what would be a massive improvement. One that does my club no harm at all, Hudds money spends as well as anyone else's!

An . The rights and wrongs are irrelevant. Particularly as we are right we have taken loads to Belle vueE FOR THE LAST 6 OR SO SEASONS BUT IT IS IRRELEVANT. Any stick to beat the competition is used.

However i wil be boycotting this match as even if 10,000 went we would be given no credit for it. So i will listen to it on the radio.





















(it is nothing to do with being skint

)

Seriously, Smith over Brough, Poore over Kopzcak, Aiton over Lunt and Amor over Fielden/Crabtree ???? i take it you're after a bite then ?







Kirmond, probably as not many actually wanted him to go but you're just been silly with the others !!

No chance.
Smith or Robinson- really smith is brough but in terms of squad numbers wed take Robinson as he compliments Broughs style which is similar to smiths. He's also a useful bloke to step in at hooker- just ask Macca.
Poore or eorl- don't even have to think about that one.
Amor or Patrick- when was the last time amor wrong footed tomkins. Patrick please.
Aiton or Lunt- again don't even need to think it through.

We dont have a no 12, but at second row We would not have kirmond in front of chan or ferres our first choice second row players- as I said he'd make the bench.

I'm not saying we would not take those players- but none are better than our first choice. I'm sure other giants fans would agree.

We'll the mini bus is almost full, there's 6 of us plus a possible 3 more who will have to hang off the roof

Hey what about us two???? I'm gutted we are kid free and the funbus is full for sunday!

Now then, who is talking Balony? While I would agree that we are not better in every single position, with the exception of Smith all your examples have me thinking, no I wouldn't swap:

The two props- Poore I don't know much of but hear he was (ahem) poor v Bradford and stupidly sent off v Leeds. Amor is a worthy opponent but I prefer Fielden, Kopczak and Eorl. Different skill set to Patrick but Larne is a bit of a change up which I like.

Kirmond - you are having a laugh, great going forward, suspect defensively, particularly later in games (50-60 onwards) and was shipped out to make room for Jason Chan who nobody at Giants would swap for Danny.

Aiton? Again a hard opponent, might be on a par with Fooey, but without the step but not as good as Lunt or Robbo (whom I have taken the liberty of moving back to hooker as you are so keen on giving us Smith).

There are certainly a few of your players I would select in a composite team, at least 6 or 7 in a 19 man squad, but you need to consider the strengths of both squads in each position.

That is just your opinion and thus not gospel. Give it a rest all those players would be on Andersons radar if they were available don't talk such rot. How can you possibly know they wouldn't all go.

I've never read so much piffle in my life especially when you consider your previous history of signing just about any Wakey player you can get your hans on - massive contradiction in your argument but I'm certain you won't admit it.

Funny, write a post gushing with compliments and it's still not enough for you - how sad.

Ok, so Amor is better than Eorl, Poore better than Fielden, Aiton better than Lunt and Kirmond hasn't twice failed to take his chance at Giants.

Are you Steve McBanana?

Oh give it a rest Poore is way way better than Kopzcak - even you can't be that lame.

Amor over old man Fielden any day.

You really are a silly poster and far to full of bullcrap to ever have a serious debate with. The issue is not whose better it's whether certain players would be of interest if available and all the ones I mentioned would be - that's not to say you'd want them all - how difficult is that to understand. Who said Smith over Brough, completely different players who both offer a lot - do you u n d e r s t a n d?

Kopzcak and Fielden over Poore and Amor

now who's after a bite.

That said my current favourite is Andy Raleigh, cheers for that



Enjoy your visit.

Did I say that, I said they would be of interest if available.

Having said that Poore and Fielden no contest, Poore will frighten the living daylights out of Fielden because most people do since Willy got him.

That's a really pathetic jibe at Kirmond who gave you great service, how typical.

Who is Poore by the way ?? did you not sign him in the off season ? if so then he was available but Anderson obviously wasn't interested as he signed Fielden and Kopzcak instead of him so that blows your theory straight away !!

Why would we be interested in players who aren't as good as the ones we currently have IF they were available ? granted the names you mentioned would be decent squad players but nothing more !!

Actually yes you did say that. Stop your blustering wipe the spittle from your mouth and think it through. Your comment was in response to my initial post where I said man for man our squad was better. You said it wasn't and gave the names of players who you said were better. no one denied we would have some of those players at our club at all.
No good backtracking and pretending the debate was about something it wasn't because we've put names against yours and you've been found out. I was going on basic squad numbers 8 for 8 etc.

You said they would make our first team. Now you have changed and are saying they would be of interest. Squad players then? Which doesn't do much to dispel the original claim that we were better man for man right across the team (a point I disagree with).

Your examples are wrong other than Smith over Robbo. I don't think Anderson would be interested in any of the players listed, apart from Smith. He may be interested in Raleigh, but as an extra prop style loose forward, he also doesn't seem convinced by Luke George so may be interested in your wingers or Collis.

So there are five that hypothetically we may be interested in. Other than Smith your five that would make our team actually would most likely not, good players though some of tham are.