Soul Boy wrote:Sorry for all the questions. Has he bulked up at all, remember LR saying he needed to and think that's the way he will go signing big players for in defence.
knockersbumpMKII wrote:Yeah bang average he's done a decent job for us, in the third worst attack in SL (even AFTER our renaissance) and much of the play going to Lineham were you expecting him to score hatfuls? He's being solid and can tackle, the fact that Lancaster has being out for ages makes your statement even more ridiculous. Yeah we want Lancaster & Logan to get game time, Lancaster showed us last year he has potential, Logan too but was woeful in defence. If anything it's Yeaman who should be making way well before Micheals.
It is criminal that a BANG AVERAGE Aussie is keeping Lancaster out, when he's fit, which he has been until recently.
*1865* wrote:It is criminal that a BANG AVERAGE Aussie is keeping Lancaster out, when he's fit, which he has been until recently.
I'm not sure if you missed the massive irony of me saying Micheals was bang average (I'm a fan of his BTW) or are you jst saying you actually do think he is bang average? Clearly Radford rates him more than Yeaman and he's been in the starting 13 almost every game since he started, or are you now saying Radford's judgement is well out on this score?
knockersbumpMKII wrote:I'm not sure if you missed the massive irony of me saying Micheals was bang average (I'm a fan of his BTW) or are you jst saying you actually do think he is bang average? Clearly Radford rates him more than Yeaman and he's been in the starting 13 almost every game since he started, or are you now saying Radford's judgement is well out on this score?
He's bang average, always has been, always will be.
Why on earth do you think Radford rates him more than Kirk (do no wrong) Yeaman?
I am saying Radford's judgement is bang out on this score, every time Michaels plays (on the wing) it's criminal that he's keeping Lancaster out. Although to be fair he's hardly played on the wing. He's mostly played centre which, although not quite criminal, has blocked Logan's opportunities.
I've wanted Lancaster on the wing since day one this year, the kids excellent, and more than ready.
*1865* wrote:He's bang average, always has been, always will be.
Why on earth do you think Radford rates him more than Kirk (do no wrong) Yeaman?
I am saying Radford's judgement is bang out on this score, every time Michaels plays (on the wing) it's criminal that he's keeping Lancaster out. Although to be fair he's hardly played on the wing. He's mostly played centre which, although not quite criminal, has blocked Logan's opportunities.
I've wanted Lancaster on the wing since day one this year, the kids excellent, and more than ready.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
he's done a decent job for us, in the third worst attack in SL (even AFTER our renaissance) and much of the play going to Lineham were you expecting him to score hatfuls?
