Apart from how to sell carpets that shed half their pile within a week

Sharp didn't really want him IMO. Another piece of great judgement.

So do we know whats happening at the minute? We seem to have everything from a mild insect bite to a blood clot!

You can't recruit based upon who might or might not get injured (well, except when it comes to signing someone like Dykes, who obviously was going to miss a large proportion of games). And, like it or not, Briscoe wasn't our first choice fullback and wouldn't have been if he'd remained. He'd have, at best, had a bench spot, and that's doubtful, given his limitedness.

Would it have been worth paying a presumably sizeable (given he was wanting international-player wages) amount for someone who would only be in if there was an injury to Tony? In hindsight, yes, because Tony's been out for most of the subsequent period. At the time a decision had to be made, no. Tony had shown no sign of being likely to miss any significant game-time and there was nothing to suggest he might.

Tony is a very good utility back/hooker. Briscoe is a very good full back. Byrne is an average utility back. If the coach had had any balls and set out for Tony what his actual best role in the squad was we could have had Briscoe at FB and Tony at utility back, 2 good players in their best positions, rather than Tony at FB (when he's not a FB) and Byrne as an average utility back.

Tony is a fullback. Again, like it or not, that's his best position. Always has been and always will be. And he offered/offers more than Briscoe did, so he was, and would have remained/did remain, first choice. He's not very good at hooker. He's not anywhere near good enough to be playing there regularly and he would be behind Lee and Berrigan for that role. He's not a winger (interesting the people who apparently themselves when he has to take a catch at fullback would be happy to see him on the wing, where it is even easier to target the player with kicks) and he isn't a centre either. He's not played in either role for very long and for good reason. The only other position he could possibly play in the backs is at 6, and the last few games he's had there (for us, NZ and Cas) weren't, to say the least, impressive performances. Again, just one more time in case it finally sinks in, he's a fullback and has been throughout his career.

Finally, Briscoe's not a 'very good' fullback. He's an average, 'solid' fullback, the sort of fullback we seem to persist with in this country and the sort of fullback that will continue to see us embarrassed at the top level.

If you're happy with accepting average 'solidity', that's your choice. It's not mine though, and nor is it the choice of the top coaches/clubs in the game.

What a load of tosh.

It's not that much actually, only five fairly short words.

You can tell me a million times. IMO a specialist full back can deal with the high ball. I'd be fine with Briscoe's "averageness" if that meant being able to defuse a high ball, clear his goal line, defend courageously and back up Richard Horne for try after try

I'd just like to throw into the mixing pot that this long held belief that Motu is somehow a hooker is complete rubbish IMO. He cant pass for a start.

god i miss them moments so much,ahh the memories

Seemed to be at least once a game. We used to wonder whether the opposition watched any videos - the number of tries we scored off Briscoe on Horne's shoulder and Cooke's cut-out pass was silly.

Cant pass, cant catch, cant tackle

So what the hell is he doing on a rugby pitch

And how we miss it

Can't do any of that yet has still achieved far more in his life than you.



Seriously though, a player who can't pass, can't catch, can't tackle doesn't play for the world champions. You may not rate him as a fb but you can't doubt his talent as a player and if you can't see what the hell he is doing on a rugby pitch then what the hel are you doing in a rugby ground?

you might want to rethink that boy

Possibily the biggest load of rubbish I've read on this forum in a while.



If the arguement is between Briscoe and Motu in terms of an all round player, then there is a debate, but in the full back position Briscoe wins hands down.

The fact you've tried to to be all 'superior' by calling me 'boy' proves my point.

I'll certainly try.



Something which Tony does on the vast majority of occasions. And it's a fairly minor part of the game anyway. It's not often that you'll get more than two or three a game going to the fullback and if he deals with 90% (I'd be alright with less, TBH, if they don't cost us) that's fine with me. As I've said plenty of times, it's an area he could be stronger in, but it's nowhere near the problem it's made out to be.



All of those things you mention are fairly minor parts of the game (except clearing the goal line, but I suspect you mean that differently to how I'd view it, as Briscoe certainly isn't good in that area AFAIC). Not the attributes that should be looked for as the most important things for a fullback, yet they remain so in this country. And we wonder why we get our s handed to us every time we come up against the Aussies, who play fullbacks who have a little more to their game. Maybe we could learn something from that.



But he played there for NZ a couple of times. He [imust[/i be a hooker.

(He can pass, but it's short, defence-splitting passes in a tight space that he's good at rather then long, fast, flat, accurate passes, repeatedly, from dummy half, where he's not good at all.)



Coming up with a decent counter argument should be easy then.

Once you have lived in the real world I will let you come back and reconsider superiority young man

I can actualy picture some of them now

If you're as old as you sound, by the time I've lived in the real world will you still be here?

Put your sock away man!!

Tony went to FB when Briscoe was out injured. Nothing to do with him 'wanting' the position or Briscoe being moved aside to make way. He kept Briscoe out because his form there was very good - something conveniently forgotten nowadays.

If reports are true, paying Briscoe 'a bit more money' would have broken the pay structure in place at the time.

www.sporthull.co.uk/rugby_league ... p?ID=13194

www.sporthull.co.uk/rugby_league ... p?ID=13194