Danny Brough

[pedro]

I'd take Brough. He;s a great player. Took Scotland to the quarters almost by himself. Imagine if he had been in the England team instead of Chase. We'd have been in the final for certain.

No he isnt, he's not consistant at all which is why he doesnt get picked for England.

not consistant? Hudds finished 1st last year.

[TrueBlueWarrior]

I'd take Brough. He;s a great player. Took Scotland to the quarters almost by himself. Imagine if he had been in the England team instead of Chase. We'd have been in the final for certain.

No he isnt, he's not consistant at all which is why he doesnt get picked for England.

not consistant? Hudds finished 1st last year.

....and then failed miserably in their 2 games that counted (playoffs) when Brough was awful.

[i'm spartacus]

I don't think that's the case I think his face simply doesn't fit

There is some irony in that comment.

He has a face only a mother could love, and it looks like she used to feed him with a catapult.

[pedro]

No he isnt, he's not consistant at all which is why he doesnt get picked for England.

not consistant? Hudds finished 1st last year.

....and then failed miserably in their 2 games that counted (playoffs) when Brough was awful.

1 was against the champion team, so he played poorly for 2 games. Green played poorly for most of the second half of the season then came good at the end, that makes more inconsistant.

[TrueBlueWarrior]

not consistant? Hudds finished 1st last year.

....and then failed miserably in their 2 games that counted (playoffs) when Brough was awful.

1 was against the champion team, so he played poorly for 2 games. Green played poorly for most of the second half of the season then came good at the end, that makes more inconsistant.

True consistency is playing at the highest level in the toughest games very very often, something Green does and sadly Brough doesn't. As we all know playing consistently well against poor teams and the better teams with weakened teams out in the weekly rounds means nothing, that's why winning the LLS rarely means you win a GF.

[pedro]

....and then failed miserably in their 2 games that counted (playoffs) when Brough was awful.

1 was against the champion team, so he played poorly for 2 games. Green played poorly for most of the second half of the season then came good at the end, that makes more inconsistant.

True consistency is playing at the highest level in the toughest games very very often, something Green does and sadly Brough doesn't. As we all know playing consistently well against poor teams and the better teams with weakened teams out in the weekly rounds means nothing, that's why winning the LLS rarely means you win a GF.

winning the LLS is a sign of consistancy as they won more games against the better teams more of the time.

[TrueBlueWarrior]

1 was against the champion team, so he played poorly for 2 games. Green played poorly for most of the second half of the season then came good at the end, that makes more inconsistant.

True consistency is playing at the highest level in the toughest games very very often, something Green does and sadly Brough doesn't. As we all know playing consistently well against poor teams and the better teams with weakened teams out in the weekly rounds means nothing, that's why winning the LLS rarely means you win a GF.

winning the LLS is a sign of consistancy as they won more games against the better teams more of the time.

Not necessarily, you can win all your games against 'weaker' opposition and lose the majority if not all against the top 3 teams as in Leeds, Wolves and us last year. Also winning the LLS is a sign of a consistent team with the majority of players being consistent throughout the season, not necessarily all the players i.e. Brough who is inconsistent and especially against the better teams. Infact I am not sure I have actually seen him play well when it really matters hence no trophies.

[pedro]

True consistency is playing at the highest level in the toughest games very very often, something Green does and sadly Brough doesn't. As we all know playing consistently well against poor teams and the better teams with weakened teams out in the weekly rounds means nothing, that's why winning the LLS rarely means you win a GF.

winning the LLS is a sign of consistancy as they won more games against the better teams more of the time.

Not necessarily, you can win all your games against 'weaker' opposition and lose the majority if not all against the top 3 teams as in Leeds, Wolves and us last year. Also winning the LLS is a sign of a consistent team with the majority of players being consistent throughout the season, not necessarily all the players i.e. Brough who is inconsistent and especially against the better teams. Infact I am not sure I have actually seen him play well when it really matters hence no trophies.

wouldnt finish top then really.

[TrueBlueWarrior]

winning the LLS is a sign of consistancy as they won more games against the better teams more of the time.

Not necessarily, you can win all your games against 'weaker' opposition and lose the majority if not all against the top 3 teams as in Leeds, Wolves and us last year. Also winning the LLS is a sign of a consistent team with the majority of players being consistent throughout the season, not necessarily all the players i.e. Brough who is inconsistent and especially against the better teams. Infact I am not sure I have actually seen him play well when it really matters hence no trophies.

wouldnt finish top then really.

Think you need to check your calculations!

Win all your games against the weaker opposition gives you 21 wins. Lose all your games against the top 3 gives you 6 defeats.

Guess what? Hudds won the league last year with 21 wins and 6 defeats, look at the table!

[pedro]

Brough missed 2 of them games so he lost 4 games all year in the 27 games. Not bad, better than any other half back in the competition by far.