Page 1 of 2

Hookers

Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 11:32 am
by chrisJJ
Do you think that the team was a lot better with just one hooker (higham) i think it gave a bit more consistancy in attack and in defence higham is one of the best?

But if this true where does the leave Godwin?

and subs:

Hasnsen- played well, when given the chance

Brown- No mistakes a good game?

Seuseu- solidered on

Danny Tickle- Went down a bit easy but made good field position. A bit over shadowed by the rest of the pack but still extremely brave.

Re: Hookers

Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 11:43 am
by Fujiman
chrisJJ posted:
Brown- No mistakes a good game?
Wasn't really on long enough but you could tell he was up for it, as was the rest of the lads

Re: Hookers

Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 11:46 am
by sedbergh
I tend to agree. Higham has been improving week and week, especially in the games where he hasn't been subbed. He's playing the best he has all season at the moment. But where that leaves Godwin I'm not sure. He's certainly a valuable squad member but changing the hookers round during a game hasn't really worked.

Re: Hookers

Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 12:05 pm
by GeoffN
Godwin & Dobson in the halves.

Re: Hookers

Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 12:51 pm
by nathan_rugby
I am a really big fan of godwin. Like feka he started off fantastic and was our best player. He came on as sub and ran at defence with pace often catching markers not sqaure.
I think it is really important having 2 great hookers. They can fill in at 6 or 7 with ease. Leeds have 2, diskin and millard. bradrod have henderson and newton, saints have cunningham and ?
Looks like every team is trying to do it.

Re: Hookers

Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 1:11 pm
by Martin WWRFL
i think brown will be goin huddersfield as when rugby league said the fielden transfer was fine they said they'd contacted nfl and super league teams to make sure our proposed moves are goin through so they would have contacted leigh about hargreaves and i think the super league team would have been huddersfield.

Re: Hookers

Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 1:16 pm
by Leyther Pie
nathan_rugby posted:
saints have cunningham and ?
James Roby :eh:

Re: Hookers

Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 1:25 pm
by nathan_rugby
And we are ment to be getting huddersfield centre james evens i think he called.

Re: Hookers

Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 1:50 pm
by Fraggle
chrisJJ posted:
Do you think that the team was a lot better with just one hooker (higham) i think it gave a bit more consistancy in attack and in defence higham is one of the best?

But if this true where does the leave Godwin?
He's a bit too similar in style to Higham for my liking, although a cracking player in his own right. To whoever said that most teams have two hookers at the moment, the two normally have different styles. Previously we've had Newton and Mark Smith, with Smithy providing pace that Newton didn't have but not as effective in defence and support. When Higham was at the Skints he did the same for fat lump KFC. I'm not sure if retaining both Higham and Godwin really benefits us too much, and it will be interesting to see how Noble views things, particularly given that as an ex-GB hooker himself he's going to know that position better than anyone!

Given that I can't remember seeing him play, what kind of style does Mike McIllorum have? Have we got room for 2 established hookers with a 3rd who's highly rated and will be looking to break into the first team soon?

Re: Hookers

Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 9:32 pm
by chrisJJ
Leyther Pie posted:
nathan_rugby posted:
saints have cunningham and ?
James Roby :eh:
Half-back