Quote ="Mild Rover"It is now impossible to troll over there - they're more negative than I've ever been even when doing my 'alternative voice' bit. Think they'll beat Quins tbh, but if not I can see Agar getting the bullet - it'd be getting to the point of it being a mercy.
On the other hand it is quiet here. Nice change or a bit eery - what do we think?
Hudds. My team...
Briscoe, Fox, Webster, Welham, Hall; Murrell, Green; Clinton, Cockayne, Watts, Mason, Galea, Netherton.
Interchange: Hodgson or Fisher, Wheeldon, Lovegrove, Taylor.
My rationale...
Listing Murrell at stand-off means I wouldn't have to listen to people complain that he's not a 7, when we clearly play left and right split halfbacks. Tell people he's at 6 and they'll be happier. That's quite provocative for me, innit?
Cockayne at 9 is in the hope that he'll start a game more disciplined rather than come dashing on later and do something whole-hearted but dozy. Fisher or Hodgson would do more minutes there, but Cockayne offers better cover for injuries than picking them both - and I think we need 3 big forwards on the bench. Hopefully Clinton will be back to something like his old self - that goes for a few actually.'"
I never really post over there, too lazy, I have a read now and again, mainly for chuckles. "TrevLovesJanice" is my favourite.
It's eerie around here at present, fo sho.
I'm with you on the Murrell front, Morgan has now stated that Bell won't play, so there's not really any other option, the half backs aren't the problem at the moment, it's a lack of go forward and sloppy defence that's costing us.
Cockayne at hooker is a terrible idea, he knocks on at the ptb enough as it is without giving him 75% more opportunities for him to do so. I do see the logic in playing him from the start but his energy when inserted into the game more than makes up for the idiotic things he does, which imo he would probably do anyway. He also cannot pass at all to his left, which would be a slight problem at nine. Other than that, yes, I entirely agree.
