Jump to content

LeeF

Coach
  • Content Count

    3,739
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,603 Excellent

Member Profile

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

6,512 profile views
  1. But if it clicks it is more than capable of making a very large total against any opposition
  2. Only playing because Willey was with England and Waite got injured. Sometimes a career just needs a bit of luck to get it started
  3. He has been a match referee at County Cricket for a few years now
  4. They should only include teams which are based in towns which aren’t transport hubs. Ones that don’t have a train station for example
  5. Shaul gives the impression that he just hasn’t developed or progressed since his debut. Yes he is a decent broken field runner but his defence isn’t the best and under a high ball, based on what I have seen, he is dodgy. He also isn’t a creative player So is the lack of development down to him or the (ex) coach or the club?
  6. So we are both basically saying it’s the culture and attitude that is wrong at Hull and changing the coach doesn’t really resolve their issues only a churn of the playing squad or at least a decent proportion will sort
  7. You are looking at this the wrong way Hull have very quickly adapted to the new rules to ensure they continue getting hammered and concede 50 points plus
  8. At the time, if memory serves, Development Officers, or something similar, could be employed by clubs and their salaries did not count on the salary cap
  9. I was asking the original poster who “throwing” money at Cumbrian clubs would be a better option than London after all they like most long established clubs have already received more money than London. The club the OP supports has actually received substantially more money than London and doesn’t run an Academy.....
  10. Why not give it to say a heartland club that has received money for well over 40 years and hasn’t got an Academy?
  11. Yes it was. Just because you didn’t see it from your poor viewing position doesn’t mean that it wasn’t grounded
  12. You are missing the clear point in that he must have seen the grounding otherwise it would have been sent upstairs for a check. Just because the TV didn’t or more likely couldn’t show a grounding doesn’t mean the ref was incorrect in awarding after all he would have been closer and at a better angle to view the incident
×
×
  • Create New...