Actually it was Bridger who used the term; I was quoting, not Jackdog, but quoting nonetheless HTH (aka You didn't remember correctly

).

He stands with Noble now - I prefer Nobles use of Hock at the end of last season. So by that logic we both stand with Noble.

You're right, he didn't actually use the phrase know-nothing-parrott, he said anybody putting Hock on the bench is daft and that anybody who says that is because he will have a good impact off the bench is parrotting that line.

So lets say daft parrotts. That better?

As for toing and froing, I am genuinely interested in what Jackdog believes are the merits in Hock starting, other than Nobby also believes it. It may be he has seen something I (or anybody else) haven't. I am trying to have a debate, that is why it is called a forum.

Wind your necks in pazzers, my position is substantial enough already, believe me. Any substantialer and I'll need a bigger basket.

I just wish all the so-called 'experts' -- you know the ones...our head coach and his staff etc. -- would learn to listen to the views of the majority of experienced website posters. In fact, I think forum posters should actually 'elect' the team.

..And I reserve the right to further turgidity until dinner time.

Sorry to be pedantic pal and this will be my last offering on this subject, but I am aware Bridger coined the phrase. It was the way you used it to have a pop at the OP that was incorrect, hence me pulling you up. If one were to only read your post it would appear that the OP used the phrase and you were retaliating to it, a common enough tactic on here.

Anyway, I shall step aside and let you continue, not least because if you agree with Nobby yet dispute his use of Hock you can't be wrong - or right for that matter.

IMO You need some impact in terms of power and aggression at the start, it's a key time in the game. Hock can offer this impact better than any other player in the team minus Feka, who is better coming on after 20 mins for added impact.

If we had 2 hard hitting props i.e Andy Lynch and Tommy's cousin then I probably would start Hock from the bench as 'secondary impact', but as it happens we often start with Coley and Fielden who have little impact from the start so we need something from the kick off, someone on there to mix it up amongst the first hits/drives.

So no one is wrong, just a case of what benefits the team, and how we can utilise Hock considering our other players.

It's because Hock's a very good player. Perhaps our best.

*When used correctly.

In other words you took my quotation out of context by [iassuming[/i the source was the OP yet somehow that's my fault? OK; I'm glad that was your last offering on that subject.



No, I'm saying I agree with Nobby's use then, not his use now. Surely that's not too difficult to comprehend?

My point entirely; I believe the correct use of Hock is from the bench against a tiring defence. Not from the outset when he is 3-man tackled out of the game.

In your opinion and your line of argument we should also start with Feka then? Easily our best Prop and one of our best players.

tur·gid (tûrjd)
adj.
1. Excessively ornate or complex in style or language; grandiloquent: turgid prose.
2. Swollen or distended, as from a fluid; bloated: a turgid bladder; turgid veins.

Do you mean rigidity?

I think Nobby is actually doing a decent job with the squad this season. Yes, some of the results have been not so good, but he's doing a bit of rotation where possible and not picking purely on reputation.

The season is very long and you have to still be firing at the end of it somehow! We do have more options now than previous seasons.

Looking forward to another beltin' game on Friday - Viva Shaun Ainscough!

I wasn't assuming anything since I knew Bridger posted it. I was criticising you for trying - unsuccessfully - to make it look as if the OP posted it. Squirm all you want, sonny, it's all there in black and white.

Also, if you now disagree with Nobby, how can you apply any logic (even yours) and deduce that you and the OP both stand with Nobby? Apparently, that [iis[/i too difficult for you to understand.

I would think McIllorum would get back in for Smith.

I hope so. Both he and Pryce had their chance and failed to take it IMO. For all his skills Smith is simply too much of a liability in defence.

Oh, it wasn't your final word on the subject then? You [iassume[/i I was trying "to make it look as if the OP posted it"; that was never my intent. However, thanks for making assumptions "sonny".



Without wishing to turn this existential, Brian Noble then is Brian Noble now. Therefore it is fair to say that 2 people agreeing with two different applications made by Noble [iboth[/i agree with Noble.

Are you going to expand on that general summary with any specifics at all?

On that we agree. Smith is great with ball in hand but is quickly exposed when someone runs at him.

I really didn't want to get dragged in but you needed to be put right and I could spare the time. The bit in bold is desparate, BTW.

"Brian Noble then is Brain Noble now"? Schoolboy stuff!!

Clearly his view is that a coach can never be wrong (which has me wondering why coaching is such an non secure career choice), and that me must start with both Hock and if he is consistant Feka.

Pryce is still coming back to terms with the sport and needs more game time in the reserves. To say he hasnt taken his chance is harsh but Smith hasnt.

Response sent via PM as this has gone o/t and I've no wish for the thread to be derailed.

Hope you're happy with the response!

Maybe I'm too harsh on Pryce. I have questioned Roberts' for a while now and was really pleased when Pryce got selected last week, only to be disappointed with his performance, bearing in mind the "reviews" he was geeting for his reserve appearances. My problem is I vivdly remember the pre-union version!

Play Goulding on the wing. Both Pryce and Roberts aren't showing the right attitude, that can't be excused.