Chris71 wrote:For me the difference between Kelly and Reynolds is down to team play. Kelly was an excellent player for us but the big problem was a lot of what he did was off the cuff and none of the team knew what he was doing or thinking as he didn't seem to play to any structure (even at Rovers) he seemed to just have a free role.
Reynolds seems to have the same if not more technical and natural ability but also seems a much more disciplined player in terms of the roles and structures in play.

That may well be down to the lack of structures and what Kelly was told to do by Radford etc but I think Josh Reynolds is certainly the better fit for us with Sneyd etc.

Bombed Out wrote:

In his after match interview though he did say he was more of an off the cuff player and had to remember to play to the game plan.
Think both players are similar but Hodgson is the difference to be honest and the way he sets the team up.
Reynolds was given licence to play on either side of the pitch were as Kelly was predominantly played down the right and Sneyd on the left in the Radford era.

Bombed Out wrote:Reynolds was given licence to play on either side of the pitch were as Kelly was predominantly played down the right and Sneyd on the left in the Radford era.

The Hollywood Frasier wrote:I pointed that out on the game thread, there is no way our passing would have been fast enough to get Connor in the 3 on 2 situation for the Griffin try if it wasn't Sneyd passing to Reynolds.

That try was clearly a off the training pitch structure play. The PTB was to the side of the post to open up a 60/40 split with Sneyd and Reynolds doubling up, Manu really sold his dummy run to get Connor even more space on the outside.

bonaire wrote:Have said many times Hull should use Shaul as a nine now the rules have changed.His running with the ball from acting half would be sensational.
You dont need distribution skills to be able to pick up a ball and pass to a first receiver.
In any case he cant be worse at passing a ball than Danny Houghton as was shown yesterday.

Dave K. wrote:This is what a lot of us have been saying for a year or two now, you can't have Shaul and Sneyd as two of your pivots as neither are creative enough or have that good a passing game.

Having Reynolds with Connor as FB, makes our passing much faster and accurate, there is no way Shaul would have put Griffin through that gap.

We do lose some pace, so would love to see Hodgson working wit Shaul to improve his passing and decision making in the opposition's 20, this would gives us even more competition for places.

mwindass wrote:He'd be a worse version of Brad Dwyer at 9. He hasn't got the decision making to play 9, never mind the workrate.

He'd be best off on the wing

GrahamBray wrote:Jamie Shaul is amazing - in broken play, not structured plays. He is the type of player that can score from nothing, which is useful but as a pivot, his input is so limited that we cannot afford to play him as a fullback. It is a great shame that his passing is so limited, if he could improve that side, I think he would have done so already, for me that talent is not coached in to a player it is a natural trait that some are born with, but not Jamie.. If he had the skills that Connor has, his potential would be virtually limitless in the British game. I'd often thought he'd be a great hooker but again, he lacks the distribution skills required. Nice problem to have though, excellent for squad rotation and to keep Jake on his game.