Gordon Gekko wrote:Dowes and Cusack would deffo have made more yards and tackles than King and Cordoba (who was very ordinary). Thackray/Lauaki would have provided more impact from the bench, Washbrook would have played LF and Yeaman would have played right centre. That would have given Hull more quality and better balance. Agar got his tactics almost spot on yesterday but didn't really have the players to execute them properly. They rightly spotted Welham,Newton and Webster in defence and their short kicking game was outstanding. with ball in hand they always looked like they could break Rovers down. Remember there was only 6 points in it and Hull had three tries disallowed, 2 correctly and 1 incorrectly imo. I have no doubt that had Hull been full strength they'd have won yesterday.
So basically what your saying is that if Hull had the side playing that played us in the 1st Derby (except Lauiki) they would have beaten us, interesting as when you look at that game we won it...
Hull got a second wind after the lay off for the Briscoe injury, this gave them time to regroup, and for us to relax and think it was going to be a walk in the park. Hull played this game like it was a cup final from then on and we let them throw it about a bit and in the end they could have nicked it.. Basically we played very poorly for most of the game, Hull played as well as they could and we still won.. bottom line is if Hull play like that against hudds they'll get battered on Friday and if we play like that we'll get battered on Sunday.
On Topic, Rhys was outstanding again yesterday, by far our best prop although I thought Vella and Fozzard both played a lot better then they have recently.
Newts did ok, looked a bit tired and Galea looked Woeful again, I'd be tempted to leave him out on Sunday and give him a coupkle of weeks off.
Though Chev looked pretty good when he came on as well.
