Big Dave T wrote:I kind of understand what youre saying, i dont agree. I'm not a Rovers fan in disguise, you do know that FC fans are permitted to have differing opinions dont you? .
I meant with your seeming inability to understand a simple concept. Most Hull FC fans differ in their opinions from mine but most eventually realise I was right in the first place
Big Dave T wrote:He's not an all time great. The arguement was that Cooke was our main attacking player. He was exceptional at the job he did for us, not just decent imo. He didnt have an all round game and meant we were one dimensional, but he gave us what we havent had since, a cutting attack. (i agree, we had no other weapons, that shouldnt water down the role that Cooke did, effectively he played 2 or 3 peoples roles) .
We never had a "cutting attack" when cooke was our main playmaker. In 2005 we were only the 6th highest scoring team in SL and in 2006 the 5th highest.
Big Dave T wrote:I agree that Swain has been our biggest loss overall, however in attack its Cooke. .
Or head or dykes (both of whom were much better players than cooke but blighted by injury
Big Dave T wrote:Yes we've been playing with poor players or injuries since Cooke left which is the reason we've been poor, but to go back the the original arguement, Cooke leaving is the reason for that! If Cooke hadnt left we wouldnt have made poor recruitment or brought in aussies with poor injury records, on that basis i'd say youre wrong to play down Cookes role at Hull as been an exceptional player and our key attacking weapon.
cooke leaving is the reason we haven't had a decent 1/2 back since? One way of looking at it I suppose but I'd say the failure to replace him with one of the numerous better players available is another.
His role at Hull was pivotal but it doesn't mean it he was exceptional (which he certainly wasn't). At rovers he isn't even as good as canberra's previous 3rd choice half back and I doubt there'll be a queue of top clubs wanting to sign him for next season
