At last, something I can disagree with you about. I thought Kylie was terrific. He and Bailey were clearly told to get stuck into O'meley at ever opportunity and they did a great job.

We lost a tonne of momentum when Bailey and Kirke were and and the two useless lumps (Burgess and Kirke) were propping.

Nice use of the metric system there and one too many Kirke's for my liking and two too many for yours.

Oops. It's late. The first Kirke should have been a Kylie (the praise). The second Kirke should've been a Kirke (the criticism).

I'm sure you knew what I meant to type.

One Kirke is too many for my liking,

I'm sure I did, sometimes even before you type it.

We must agree to differ - O'Meeley hit Kylie early doors and Kylie made little/no contribution until he returned for his second stint

Where are we in the league - does that suggest we are playing well?

What happened last year or the year previous is not what we are commenting on now; we are talking about current form and currently we are 9th out of 14.

Do you think if we play like that on Saturday the result will be the same - given that Hull will have Fitzgibbon, Tickle, Horne and Long back?

providing we sort out the right hand side defence then yes, i think we will be too good for them

That's a very simplistic way of looking at things.

I know it's a worn out old cliche, but it applies here. Form is temporary, class is permanent. Leeds have the class. Do you seriously think we will finish 9th at the end of the regular season?

I personally think we'll finish 4th.

I know it's a worn out old cliche, but it applies here. The league table never lies

it doesn't take into account injuries,suspensions etc.
woild we have had the same amount of points had we been at, or near enough, full strength all season.

i think the answer to that is no, we would have had 3 or 4 more.

Nah, the playoffs and grand final never lie. Class and mental toughness always shine through.

But the table does lie. Put us in wigans situation for example. Without any WCC and as many injuries, we're in the top 2 or at worst 3rd.

When discussin gindividual and team performances so far then what relevence do predictions of the future have? The performances so far are shown in the results, criticism is always likely to follow particularly if we have seen better in the past

Class is not permanent.

Sick of banging my head against a wall on that one.

Do you think McDermott, Poaching, and Dunneman would still be class playing in that team? Would they b0llox. They played a big part in our success years also, but class does come to an end.

agree with g1 on this , the purple spell of the 2nd half seemed to co incide with the return of kylie & bailey

eastwood & peacock will be ahead of burgess and kirke when fit , and pitts & ambler have probably shown more consistency & aggression

If you hadn't lost a match you would be top and be WCC champions, then again if you hadn't won a match you would be bottom.Won 5, lost 5, drawn 1 puts you in 9th position, that is a fact.Dreaming about what may have been and making excuses will not alter this no matter how hard you wish.You state "we could have had 3 or 4 points more" you could also have had 3 or 4 less.The games have been played 9th position is where you are at the moment.This may improve over the course of the season it may not, but the results will stand.

No. They're old gimmers now. I get the impression from some of your other posts you think this team is past it.

It isn't. The class is still there.

It will.

Whilever Seniors got it to compete at the top i'd rather he stayed.

i have never made excuses. the fact remains that if injuries hadn't have hit so hard we wold be at lest 3/4 points better off and we would be in a healthier league position.

Isn't that an excuse Mr tad?

That's fantasy not reality - the reality is we are ninth and have looked less than convincing for long stretches of games.

I think we will finish top 4 - but the comments are made about the here and now.

not at all, its my opinion.
do you think we would have been stronger with peacock, eastwood, sinfield and the rest in the side?

i do

Do you think Hull would be stronger with Horne, Hall, Tickle and Fitzgibbon of course they would have been so if they had all played we might not have won?

It is all conjecture - what we are commenting on is the reality because it actually happened

You could have had Long or Calderwood in there, not sure you can have a player that actually played.

I'm sure we would.