Page 3 of 3
Re: richards??
Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2012 1:19 pm
by Matthew
I think that he's been struggling since the start of the season and colliding with Sam clearly didn't help.
I think the injury was less obvious by George being back; as he covered for him a lot defensively (as he always does); however he didn't look right; but with no back on the bench; toughed it out and deserves credit for that.
If he's not right, then he needs to recover - even if that means missing Good Friday. Put one of the youngsters outside George (as Roberts doesn't appear to be getting any better).
BTW - the injured back was Goulding when Wane took over for Madge.
Re: richards??
Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2012 2:42 pm
by Mike
ragman wrote:Mike wrote:ragman wrote:Pat has always been deceptive pace-wise, but he definitely looks to be struggling this year so far, and on Friday looked like he was dragging a wardrobe. He can't be fit, and surely needs a rest
Can we get this straight - Pat was injured on Friday. He was injured before he hit Sam. He had a thigh injury even before his first conversion attempt. Why do you think Sam was taking the kick offs?
THe problem is that SW decided he could stay on, but we lost a lot of defensive and attacking potentail because of that decision.
Errr...that's what I'm saying...
I'm a big Pat fan, and by deceptive I mean he's always been quicker that he looks, probably due to his stride length. he is clearly struggling for fitness, as I said, and needs to be rested to recover.
I'm unclear why you've chosen to quote me and seemingly present what I've said as an attack - it's clearly the opposite. Pat may be at the back end of his career, but he still has plenty to offer. he just can't do it on one leg like he's being asked to
What i am saying is that he was injured in that match. He didn't start injured. You are saying he came into the match injured and therefore should have been rested. His performance in the game is due to a specific issue, not general lack of fitness.
Re: richards??
Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2012 5:23 pm
by First Try Tickle
He's really been missing Carmont, when they play together they really know what each other is doing and he always seems to be at his side. Mostly this season he played with Hughes so not only didn't know his play, but had to cover his tackling. Look what happened on his wing when he wasn't on at Widnes.
In Madge's first season he was superman, he ran the line so well, but teams caught on with this and mark him better.
Dont think we'll ever see the man of steel again, but we do need him fit.
Re: richards??
Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2012 7:23 pm
by exile in Tiger country
shaunedwardsfan​club​ wrote:Kiwiseddon wrote:I am one of Pat's biggest fans. I want to make that clear before I go on. I am also one of Shaun Edwards biggest fans but here's the rub, I wouldn't want Shaun Edwards playing for us now.
I would if he was in his mid-twenties. If Giz had played on Friday we would have won by a country mile. Mind you we would have won by a country mile if he had been coaching us - a brilliant rugby league brain just like his dad Jackie.
Maybe, but Rugby League has changed an awful lot since he went over to the dark side.
Re: richards??
Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:14 am
by phil winnard
There is no doubt that Pat has not been at his best this season but he was definitely injured on Friday after the Sam collision and really struggled afterwards.
I think he can however be included for his goal kicking alone which is the best we have ever had. Yes he lacks a bit of pace now for a winger but I would still always have a fit Richards in anyone of my sides.
Re: richards??
Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 9:06 am
by Shaun1967
Mike wrote:
What i am saying is that he was injured in that match. He didn't start injured.
He came into the match carrying a dead leg he picked up in the Broncos game.