Barnacle Bill wrote:Having watched Clinton for some time now, I don't see what he brings to the side that we didn't have already.

He's OK and lately probably one of our better performing props (that's not saying much) but he's not a nasty b@stard who'll knock the sh.!.t out of someone in defence or knock defenders over like skittles. He's Jason Netherton with a bit more go forward. A latter day Richie Hayes, but spending less time on the pitch.

Really, would we have performed any worse without him? I don't think we would. We lost the two best impact players we had (Stan & Macca) and have not replaced anything like.

Comparing the impact that Clinton makes compared to O'Meley is like chalk and cheese even Paul King is looking better than any of our props.

Barnacle Bill wrote:

Why do I have to wait until the end of the season to see Clinton's worth when I can see the worth of O'Meley and others now?

Scott_HKR wrote:What a load of tripe.
Clinton has been terrific for us so far, and its an insult to say that Stan and Makka are better.

smartmart wrote:you dont have to wait until the end of the season to see his worth ,come the buisness end he will be proving bringing him over was a good move.
besides clinton is one of the players who has improved every week .im not sure ur watching with stevie wonder spec's but over the past few weeks hes been one to come out with some form.
o'meley's a good addition to hull and if you look at the league tables you can see his team hasnt exactly been setting the league alight.
again come the end of the season im sure he will sure his worth to hull.

Barnacle Bill wrote:Thanks for taking the time to read my post properly.

I said Clinton has probably been our best prop. I didn't say Stan and Macca were better, I said they were different. We have lost impact players and we have brought in Clinton, a very similar type of player to the ones we already had i.e. steady, solid no nonsense but not really someone who is going to turn a game, a bit like Jason Netherton for example.

Barnacle Bill wrote:He's playing well, I already said that. It's the type of player and style of play he has which I think we had already in abundance.

Scott_HKR wrote:Still way off though mate.

You said we didn't replace Makka and Stan, hence that Clinton is no better than these two.

Scott_HKR wrote:And Clinton is more of a go forward player than netherton. Just think you're doing the guy an injustice

smartmart wrote:you mean in the shape of macca and stan from last season??
macca hardly touched a ball in SL last season and as for stan hes nothing like clinton at all.
2 different players altogether ,stan could play stand off hooker or at 13 .clintons an out and out prop .
macca i must admit i was dissapointed to see him not hit the form we all got used too.
but lets be fair he hasnt been at the races for the last year of his contract.
stan and macca were legends in my eyes i remember both there debuts.
but im afraid times have moved on and there just not upto the standard that we needed .

Barnacle Bill wrote:No, that's a fairly radical conclusion to draw from what I said.

We lost two impact players and did not replace them with an impact player is what I'm saying. This is no comment on their relative abilities.

You tell me where the impact is on our bench.

Oh and by the way, in the original post I did say "He's Jason Netherton with a bit more go forward"