saints or the dobbins?

Saints will put 40 on us.

So will Rovers on current form.

Rovers will beat us but they won't score more than Saints I don't think. By Monday we will be knackered and cave in.

What a pathetic post ban this troll

The question I ask is, where has the fitness gone, we started like a house on fire and everybody sung the praises of our fitness levels and how fresh we looked when we finished games.

at least!!!!!

All very pessimistic, we do tend to up our game against Saints who had a hard game yesterday and have a busy easter period as well.

I know we are playing poorly lately but i am still optimistic at the moment.

The first 5 games we rotated the bench properly.

For the third game running we've had Moa playing 10 or 15 mins and no Thacks giving us any impact and yesterday we only used 8 interchanges.

Therefore forwards are knackered, no go-forward, more defensive work and more tired.

Ill be optomistic! Saints will score most points 32 and rovers will get 28 past us....

Oh and the optomistic bit... We will get 34 against saints and 29 against Rovers ..

I'm gonna go for Rovers, Think Saints may be tired abit after a heavy schedule and may not be at there best.

Rovers 40+
Saints 30+

We can all dream Chiko


I will be happy with good performances with effort in both games.

Is that genuine?

cannot say for sure but there is no way we used the full amount.

Salford scored there last try and Agar brought Cusack back on and he was defo carrying the number 8 card that they use to signify which interchange it is. I was in the West Stand for once and got a clear view.
Don't think any other subs were used after that were there?

I've just checked: news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 974587.stm Although they only quote 7 interchanges - they have missed the last Cusack for Washbrook (I think) interchange near the end. Probably missed it due to re-drafting their headline from 'Lucky gits Hull steal a victory'

I've just checked: news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 974587.stm Although they only quote 7 interchanges - they have missed the last Cusack for Washbrook (I think) interchange near the end. Probably missed it due to re-drafting their headline from 'Lucky gits Hull steal a victory'

Quote ="BALROG"I've just checked: news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 974587.stm Although they only quote 7 interchanges - they have missed the last Cusack for Washbrook (I think) interchange near the end. Probably missed it due to re-drafting their headline from 'Lucky gits Hull steal a victory''" Why the hell are asking Manu and Tickle to 80 minutes and Dowes as well for that matter and not using anywhere near the number of interchanges allowed? Madness!

Quote ="BALROG"I've just checked: news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 974587.stm Although they only quote 7 interchanges - they have missed the last Cusack for Washbrook (I think) interchange near the end. Probably missed it due to re-drafting their headline from 'Lucky gits Hull steal a victory''" Why the hell are asking Manu and Tickle to 80 minutes and Dowes as well for that matter and not using anywhere near the number of interchanges allowed? Madness!

To be fair, I think they have missed Radford's 2nd spell.... but that still only makes 9.

Rotation of the bench is really puzzling.

8 or 9 is still 3/4 changes not used, even if Moa was played in 2 10 minute spells it would have added more to the attack.

Agree.... add to that Dowes and Cusack where both on the bench at the same time again which coincided with Salford taking a grip on the game....
just like Cas and Quins??