Wasn't Budworth a prop?

Are you really asking me would I want Terry Newton before The Pig? Of course I would choose Newton, who wouldn't?

Me.

I think Carmont may be rested against wire due to his leg. However, Ainscough wont play, it will be pryce who noble plays at centre instead.

How did he make a mistake Mr know it all?

Come on Dave,your really irritating me now every week coming on pointing out Noble has made this mistake and that mistake. You are living in a world of hindsight with no proof whatsoever he made a mistake.

To say he made a mistake means you have concrete proof that had Ainscough and Tomkins played we would have won.

For all you know we could of lost heavily had those 2 played. They could off missed cruicial tackles or dropped cross field bombs handing Hull KR try after try. On the other hand they may of won us the game. All speculation yet oh no DaveO knows for a fact they would of won us the game!

And no,he is not my beloved Brian. I just dont see why you feel the need every week to come on here and act the Mr Know It All.

After watching Pryce yesterday I still don't think he's fit enough.

Noble makes a statement in an interview last week that hints he will be givinbg him a run out soon.

Haven't you seen the league table?

Or is it Dave's fault that we have lost all those games this year?

Jeez!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No we haven't, weve a top class number 7 that wasn't selected, Sam is a scrum half, as we will see next season. Smith looked good next to Trent Barrett last season, he was made to look good, his true colours are showing now, as "elle coco" said, he cant do anything off the cuff, fair enough his passing game is excellent, but thats it. You need more than that to be a top class number 6.

It is not a world of Hindsight because I was calling for Tomkins not to be dropped BEFORE the game because it was my opinion that this would mean our attack would be much less effective. Now given that is how it turned out i.e. our attack was less effective than in the previous few games I think any reasonable person would see the link. I can point to what happened being what I predicted would happen if Noble left Tomkins out.

Many posters on here also agree it was a mistake to leave him out and out attack suffered as a result so what is it that makes me far off the mark on this and your contrary opinion the only one that can be right?



And where is your concrete proof we would not have won?

You can't just dismiss my opinion with a bald statement and not back it up with why you think I am wrong.

I am putting forward my evidence of why I think we would have had a better attack if Tomkins and Ainscough played to back up my opinion and it is up to others to decide if what I say is reasonable or not and if they disagree say why, not just that I am wrong.



On what basis would you suggest that? Have you any evidence that these players are poor tacklers? ST is doing great in this department and Ainscough has missed fewer tackles on average than Phelps.

Your suggestion is therefore unreasonable. You may as well have said we may have lost heavily had half the team had a heart attack at the 20 minute mark because you have no basis to suggest what you do. I on the other hand have the evidence we attack better with these players in the side.



It is not a fact at all it is a reasonable opinion backed up by evidence. Yours is not backed up by anything other than pure speculation.



Perhaps I like to discuss things like team selections and so on and offer my opinion? That is why most people come on here isn't it?

Dave

You are living in a complete dream world. You have not answered my question. You have dodged it and tried to twist my words as usual. I have not stated it was right or wrong to not play ST and SA as i do not know what the outcome would of been had they played. You on the other hand seem to think you have some concrete proof that had they played we would of won.

Yes people come on to discuss and give opinions however you do not come across as discussing or giving an opinion. You come across as an arrogant poster and a know it all who thinks they are always right.

What on earth are you on about now?

If you can find where i have blamed Dave for us losing games i will drive to your house and give you a thousand quid.

Thats a little rich coming from you

....see my sig

If i wanted the monkey id of rattled the cage thanks.

For all those pro and all those anti , and all those who don't care.

Brian Noble will be Radio Manchesters Rugby League programme this coming Thursday from 6 p.m.

Get your e-mails and calls in.

Should be fun.

Over to you Jack and Dave O.

I would have expected better but not from you

Just to wade into this discussion I believe Noble was wrong to drop S. Tomkins. We have beaten Saints and Wakefield back to back with Sam in the team, and he does give us more options going forward than Riddell as he attacks the line better. Obviously the conditions didnt help or the injuries which effected our interchanges. But IMO i feel Tomkins would have tested Rovers more and I personally I feel more comfortable with McIllorum and Leuluai at 9 than I do with Riddell there.

RED HOT JAL .....



Noble will redeem himself next week against warrington and all will be forgiven... you can go on living in fantasy land and we can start praying for Ian Lenegan to see sense and tear up the contract he's creating!!!!

We are all fans with differing Ideas on what is best for the club... At the end of the day, were just sat at our computers passing time!!!

RED HOT

DAVEO .....

What question? I have not twisted anything. Show me where I have.



You were prepared to speculate about the outcome in your previous post. You said:

"For all you know we could of lost heavily had those 2 played. They could off missed cruicial tackles or dropped cross field bombs handing Hull KR try after try."

So that is going to be your line from now on if a player is absent? You are never going to speculate that if for example Lockers is injured and we lose a game, we may have won if we had the benefit of his defence, because he could have missed tackles or dropped the ball?



No I don't which I thought I explained in the previous post. It's very simple, our attack has looked better with Tomkins in the side than it did on Friday. On Friday without him it looked like it did v Wakey on the first game of the season.

It is therefore not unreasonable to conclude his absence is a reason why it did look worse than when he was in the side.

It's just simple logic. We were worse on attack than the week before, so you ask yourself what changed? Is this such a hard concept to grasp?

It is not as you keep saying something I am putting forward as concrete proof we would have won but an opinion our attack would have been better with him in the side and I have given my reasons why I think that.

Now its pretty clear you do not agree with this line of thinking. Why not? Is it because of this again?:-

"For all you know we could of lost heavily had those 2 played. They could off missed cruicial tackles or dropped cross field bombs handing Hull KR try after try."

Is that why? If so I will say again you have no reason to think that. You may as well state we would have lost because had they played they would have both got sent off. I on the other hand can point to games we played with them in the side where our attack was better so if you can explain to me why it is unreasonable to think it would have been better on Friday, feel free.



Never one to shy away from the insults are we? It really does you no credit.

Dave

It's called irony.

Now then, have you seen the league table lately, or do you think we still win the league every year, and the cup.

The reason that people are not sharing your man-love for Noble is that his win ratio is a shocker.

I tend to agree with Dave, putting Tomkins into the team would have taken us from having a player in Smith who doesn't attack the line and just spent all game passing the ball and not making play. Tomkins would have at least run at the line, with his speed and agility would have had a good chance of breaking the line as other bigger players struggled with the conditions underfoot. Also it's not like Smith is known for his defensive qualities so would Sam have really been a gamble?

Ainscough would be in a similar situation, would have liked to have seen him in the wet conditions taking the ball in field. Mind you either of the wingers on the day could have come inside from time to time rather than camp on the touch lines.

It couldn't have been worst than not running with the ball Smith and not having a decent chance at getting the ball out to the wings.

The combination of Smith, Sam and Tommy with either riddel or mcillorum is the best approach.

I think Smith and Sam alongside him gives us an extra dimension as we have a very good runner and a very good passer of the ball and gives the opposition defence extra problems to deal with.

We are a more dangerous team with the above combo so that would be my preferred choice going forward.

The choice has to be between McIllorum or Piggy. I still have reservations about McIllorums distribution - there were a number of passes against wakefield for example that were forward and not picked up by the ref, however for his attitude and defence then i'd have him in first, leaving the more creative work to the above 3 backs.

if this is true and Pryce plays i will be having a run out too !!!

straight out the ground !

The question where i asked you for proof had Tomkins and Ainscough played we would of won but as usual you write loads of paragraphs twisting the words in the hope that the original question put to you will be forgotten.





Yes i was giving you an example of why you cannot say Noble was right or wrong not to play them. I notice you cut out the last part where i said we may of won or we may of lost,who knows? More evidence that you like to twist peoples words to suit your argument.



What are you talking about at all. How would we win a game if Lockers missed tackles or dropped the ball. That just does not make any sense whatsoever.





Your argument was not that. Your argument was a typical Noble bashing for not playing him and Ainscough. You implied that had those 2 played we would of won which is nothing but speculation.



It seems the hardest concept for you to grasp is that it was monsoon conditions on Friday. What did you expect to see Dave flowing ball movement from side to side in those conditions?



So you finally admit theres just as much chance we would of lost the game had those 2 played?



No the reason i do not agree with you is because-

1.the weather meant it was always going to be a scrap
2.you are speculating what might of happened yet the way you started off was in typical anti-Noble fashion trying to point out he got it wrong and you got it right.




Ive told you the 2 reasons above.





Please show me where ive insulted you? I called you a know it all and arrogant. Observations of how you come across rather than insults. If you dont want to be called that then stop posting like your word on everything is final.

If your going to join in the argument please

a)stick to the topic in hand that we are arguing about

b)make sense. What gives you the idea i think we are going to win the league and cup every year?



Finally yes i have seen the league table and what of it?

I can only assume you are still living 20 years in the past, Get over the fact that the salary cap has evened things up. This is not 1992 anymore. No wonder opposition fans take the mick out of us with people like you. Come back at the end of the season and we will inspect the league table then.

Further proof of your arrogance and 'my word is final' attitude.

Once again i will ask for proof of how he picked the wrong team. For you to come out with a statement like that then you can only be assuming we would of won had he picked 'your' team.

Can i have the proof he picked the wrong team now?