Horne played 7 quite a bit too, while Turner or Washbrook played 6.

Lynne

The crux of your argument is that we wouldn't have signed obst if tansey hadn't gone which is bollox. The club may well have gone with tansey as back up half due to necessity but they would still have signed obst if tansey was with us at the time. It is phelps who was the replacement for tansey

Was injured a bit last year, and wasn't really ready. Still isn't according to some.

Tried him but didn't impress. Maybe he should have had more chances, maybe not. He also had some time out injured IIRC.

If the point is to prove that we don't have great strength in depth I'd stop now as I don't think you'll get many arguing otherwise. Last season was a prime example as half the side got reshuffled to cope with injuries rather than just bringing in someone to cover the injury-hit position.

The point is to prove that obst wasn't signed as a replacement for tansey, which I have

I don't think its bollox at all, I think we would have held out for better. I personally think that if we hadn't had to sack Tansey, now Hanbury is over here we would of signed Sammut round about now. We just didn't want to/couldn't have waited.

Fair enough, I just doubt it. It's another Jeffries situation for me, will produce the same sort of generally decent performances with the occasional very good piece of play, but which aren't enough for a top side on a consistent basis.

As I said, bollox

Obst - Good signing!

I would have thought a genius would have understaood that one

Does it bother you that you can't prove me wrong?
If only we had lost on Friday, your mate Brindley would be on here backing you up mate. Ah well.

I do understand that keyboard warriors don't know when they're beat.

So the fact we tried to sign sammutt before tansey was sacked means we weren't looking for half back cover before tansey was sacked? You're disproving your own argument

So now you understand it give it up

brindley? Thought that was your agar hating alter ego? Not suggesting he's a real person are you?

Now I'm confused. Obst wasn't signed as a direct replacement for anyone was he? I suppose the closest would be Berrigan but definitely not Tansey. Phelps replaces Tansey's main role (FB) and Obst takes over as back up HB from both Berro and Tansey if you want to look at it that way.

My point exactly but a couple of our learned friends seem not to agree, which is what we've been "debating"



Which is quite enlightening when you consider he then posted this



And your buddy told us this



All bollox as I said

We needed HB and 9 cover, we were after Sammut. Crusaders said yes to a deal but we would have to wait until Hanburys visa came through. Tansey got sacked - we couldn't wait, so decided to sign more urgently. Luckily for us, the Wakefield situation made it easier than it might have been.

If its any consolation I can't prove you're wrong either, but then I didn't claim victory, did I.

That sounds about right to me, Obst was a neccessity due to the fact we had lost Tansey/Berrigan. We ended up needing halfback/hooking cover.

If we're fully fit and had another hooker, Obst would be in ours. Briggs will get better, Obst is as good as he ever has been or likely ever will be.



Disagree, Orr is significantly better than Obst and always has been IMO. His organisation skills and kicking game especially are leagues ahead. He and Randall were responsible for the majority of good from Harlequins in the past few years.



He just seems to talk a bit more since Dobson's been out going by TV, and their attack looks more organised than ours. I suppose that could as much be down to them being more organised as a team in general than us though, but then that applies to most of SL.



Depends if you want your hooker to be playing 80 minutes. Houghton sharing the hooking role with either Obst or Diskin makes no difference to his development, he'd still be sharing with someone. I'd just rather it be with someone better.



We should have been though, so that point is a little irrelevant. I think our seeming preference of moving the fullback and bringing someone in there was idiotic, particularly given the fitness records of the 2 halfbacks.

Ok, ok I'll accept I worded the first post incorrectly, what I meant was that it wasn't a high priority until Tansey went.

Won't accept it, or disagree with it?

at the end of the day,its wether we should have signed obst on a 2 year deal.some say no ,some like me say yes.i suppose time will tell.if hull come out in a few months and say we could have signed cronk or thurston,but we used quota spot on obst.the no s will be right.i just think its becoming that much harder to entice top aussies over here.but as i said time will tell.