27 Jun: SL: Hull Kingston Rovers v Hull FC KO 7.45pm (TV)

[MyMrsWouldPreferSinfield]

7 hours ago, Mattrhino said:

You really have been drinking the kool aid. If you think strengthing your rivals for relegation is good business then I really don't know what to say to you. 

I share your concerns Matt and as it stands right at this moment it looks bad. I think if the worst happens and Leeds finish bottom with KR next, Sinfield will be gone and his legacy in danger.

However, I dont think that will be the case and for now we should give him a bit more slack to prove himself right.

As been discussed on another thread, two quota players out, one in.

It's quite obvious we have someone still to arrive and its likely to be a name key player. 

As been pointed out, it's quite conceivable, a win and we are 9th.

Parcel is loaned out and still our player, either to return or to sell. If he's been moved on to facilitate Hastings you'll surely be happy right?

[East of the Moon]

54 minutes ago, dkw said:

Do you know the most incredible thing about this game, a game played under high intensity, both teams had a lot on the line, it was hot, the crowd were up etc....the one stand out thing? Jake Connor didnt do anything bellendery.

"Bellendery" ...great word, if there isn't a patent on this, will use it on Sunday at Headingley! Thank you dkw...

[HKRBob]

24 minutes ago, MyMrsWouldPreferSinfield said:

Parcel is loaned out and still our player, either to return or to sell. If he's been moved on to facilitate Hastings you'll surely be happy right?

I could be wrong but i'm under the impression it's a loan in name and nothing more, so i don't think it is as simple as bring him back if required. Done so that the players can be moved instantly without going through the visa process again and then the full paperwork is done at the end of the season.

Will be interesting to see how Lunt goes for you guys. It wouldn't be a surprise to see him barrelling over from close to the try line to win some points for Leeds a la Parcell. One of my favourite players in recent seasons, but not really seen much of him since his illness.

[HKRBob]

My main surprise from the game last night was that it was the first derby in a long time that I thought we won the forward battle. I know Radford can be derided by Hull fans at time, but for the bulk of the games he has been in charge the Hull forwards have won that battle.

Off the bottom is a start, although we could be back there by the end of the weekend. At least other teams are starting to get dragged into it.

 

 

[tonyXIII]

Has anyone else read the online BBC match report (I know. Why bother?)?

It has left me confused. It reads as if Tomkins plays for FC and Savelio for KR. It also reads at one point as if FC were the home team.

Is there a parallel universe, "BBC land"?

[deluded pom?]

2 minutes ago, tonyXIII said:

Is there a parallel universe, "BBC land"?

Known as Bland for short.

[MyMrsWouldPreferSinfield]

41 minutes ago, HKRBob said:

I could be wrong but i'm under the impression it's a loan in name and nothing more, so i don't think it is as simple as bring him back if required. Done so that the players can be moved instantly without going through the visa process again and then the full paperwork is done at the end of the season.

Will be interesting to see how Lunt goes for you guys. It wouldn't be a surprise to see him barrelling over from close to the try line to win some points for Leeds a la Parcell. One of my favourite players in recent seasons, but not really seen much of him since his illness.

Parcel does not have a permanent contract at the end of the loan unlike Lolohea and Lui who arrived on loans but have permanent deals next year.

I suspect it could be one of a number of things though; Parcel might have agreed to move but not agree to stay if KR go down. He has a contract next year at Leeds.

Leeds probably want a fee that KR would not pay so the loan gets him off the quota but does not throw away an asset.

From what we know, it is Leeds prerogative to bring him back next year even if it is to sell him.

I'm not sure the visa is an issue, my understanding is that they're centrally sponsored and irrespective, for a few hundred quid, can be processed in a day.

[HKRBob]

15 minutes ago, MyMrsWouldPreferSinfield said:

I suspect it could be one of a number of things though; Parcel might have agreed to move but not agree to stay if KR go down. He has a contract next year at Leeds.

Leeds probably want a fee that KR would not pay so the loan gets him off the quota but does not throw away an asset.

From what we know, it is Leeds prerogative to bring him back next year even if it is to sell him.

I'm not sure the visa is an issue, my understanding is that they're centrally sponsored and irrespective, for a few hundred quid, can be processed in a day.

Maybe so, as i said i could be wrong... There are so many things at play when trying to juggle both the cap and quota for the rest of this season and future seasons, that some, all or none of the scenarios you profer could pan out.

Parcell's comment in the local rag indicate that he has played his last game for Leeds and that the speed of the transfer is what prevented the permanent deal being completed. I maybe wrongly inferred visa, when i suppose it could be terms between the clubs or player.

[Ullman]

11 hours ago, MZH said:

Utter nonsense. We were very sloppy at times, but showed plenty of fight. We could very easily have been hammered out of sight but we kept in it right to the end.

Warrington went there and lost a couple of weeks ago. They are a decent side and were hugely up for it.

I expect Rovers to comfortably move away from the bottom by the end of the season.

Couldn't agree more. Hull could have been overrun given the possession and field position Rovers had, particularly in the second half. The commitment to stay in the game was outstanding and gave us the chance to almost nick it.

Rovers were the better team on the night and deserved the win but the thing that worried me most before the game turned out to be the deciding factor for me and that was the five day turnaround from the game in Perpignan. Hull were clearly knackered and it showed in the type of handling errors and mistakes that teams make when they're out of energy. On the plus side, that gives us a nice long gap to next week's game against Saints. Looking forward to it already.

I don't think Rovers will finish bottom either. Not sure it will be comfortable though. Their run-in looks pretty tough with two trips to Wigan to come among others.

[Ullman]

12 hours ago, Just Browny said:

Not being funny, but Westerman stayed on and then missed the tackle on Parcell. Incredibly brave yes, but sensible? Not really, physio should have made sure he left the field.

Point taken but I think Hull had run out of interchanges.

[Loiner]

12 hours ago, bobbruce said:

Yep I’ll say again madness by Leeds to let him go to a rival. 

Not if you get the inside story.

[Loiner]

1 hour ago, HKRBob said:

My main surprise from the game last night was that it was the first derby in a long time that I thought we won the forward battle. I know Radford can be derided by Hull fans at time, but for the bulk of the games he has been in charge the Hull forwards have won that battle.

Off the bottom is a start, although we could be back there by the end of the weekend. At least other teams are starting to get dragged into it.

 

 

I obviously wanted FC to win last night but I have to say a very well played effort from Rovers. You would have thought the league table was the other way round. The scoreline didn't do you justice.

[MZH]

11 minutes ago, Loiner said:

I obviously wanted FC to win last night but I have to say a very well played effort from Rovers. You would have thought the league table was the other way round. The scoreline didn't do you justice.

Agreed.

I thought Rovers were excellent with and without the ball.

I aren't too upset as a Hull fan. We weren't at our best, but we had a dig and kept it much closer than it should have been. Very few teams would have beaten Rovers last night.

[Chrispmartha]

29 minutes ago, Loiner said:

Not if you get the inside story.

Which is? I had heard there was a bit of unrest in the squad surrounding Parcell but you never know what to believe with Leeds ATM

[Loiner]

4 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Which is? I had heard there was a bit of unrest in the squad surrounding Parcell but you never know what to believe with Leeds ATM

I live in the same street as one of the players father, he told me Parcell was a bit of a bad apple with a bad attitude to training and the club in general. As you say you never know what to believe or expect.

[Loiner]

11 minutes ago, MZH said:

Agreed.

I thought Rovers were excellent with and without the ball.

I aren't too upset as a Hull fan. We weren't at our best, but we had a dig and kept it much closer than it should have been. Very few teams would have beaten Rovers last night.

I wouldn't be too upset either. FC have played some great rugby of late everyone is allowed to have an off day. After all you are 3rd sitting quite comfortable I think.

[boris74]

The difference between Hull's best and worst is still way too big. To go from 8\9 - 10 performances down to 2\3 -10 is our achilles heal this year. Whilst defensively we had a dig our attack looked laboured at best and the lack of energy was plain to see.

Connor was given the platform to showcase his claims for the 6 shirt and fluffed his lines showing currently he is more valuable to us in the centre - he will become a class 6 though I have no doubt.

Tony Smith will get enough out of Rovers to survive although the fact they only scored 3 tries with the weight of possesion on field position suggests there is a bit of work to do in attack yet although Parcell will certainly improve that.

Fascinating battle at the bottom and I reckon the club to go down may not yet be in the bottom 3.

[Moove]

2 hours ago, Ullman said:

Rovers were the better team on the night and deserved the win but the thing that worried me most before the game turned out to be the deciding factor for me and that was the five day turnaround from the game in Perpignan. Hull were clearly knackered and it showed in the type of handling errors and mistakes that teams make when they're out of energy.

The same five day turnaround after Catalans away didn't seem to bother London a couple of weeks back.

I didn't see the first half last night but in the second Hicks made two howlers which gave you respite after sustained pressure from Rovers. It's pretty bad if fitness levels are lower at this point than a newly promoted side. Particularly if FC have hopes of a cup final and a SL challenge.

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

14 hours ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

 

Ah well. At least Leeds are bottom. We did it on purpose, really.

Wish you hadn't

[Ullman]

4 minutes ago, Moove said:

The same five day turnaround after Catalans away didn't seem to bother London a couple of weeks back.

I didn't see the first half last night but in the second Hicks made two howlers which gave you respite after sustained pressure from Rovers. It's pretty bad if fitness levels are lower at this point than a newly promoted side. Particularly if FC have hopes of a cup final and a SL challenge.

It's ridiculous to suggest the short turnaround doesn't have an effect on a team's energy levels. Rugby League is far too physical a sport for it not too. Of course you'll get the odd exception but we see it time and time again in games where one team has a full week to prepare and the other only has five days.

[DimmestStar]

Hull couldn't cope with Masoe & Garbutt and Hauraki's hit on Taylor was a joy to behold. Jake 'Mistake' Connor had one of his bad days.

Matt Parcell was outstanding playing the whole game and actually getting more and more prominent as the game went on. If Rovers stay up he will be at Craven Park next year and there will be no transfer fee.

Plenty of twists in the relegation battle still to come I fancy and Hull have a habit of responding well to bad defeats.

 

[Bring back GB]

6 hours ago, deluded pom? said:

Why is that then? Is the sport so built on sand that it is seen as a disaster if certain teams are relegated? 

When a club gets relegated, it will lose some of it's support.

Lost support is a loss to the sport, not just the club, something which our sport cannot afford.

If Leeds were relegated, their crowds would probably drop from 13000 to around 8000 thus 5000 fans lost from the sport.

Bradford have lost nearly 10,000 fans since losing their super league status.

If London go down their crowds would probably fall from 1500 to 700 so nowhere near as damaging to the sport.

It's that simple really.

Leeds and Hull KR bring so much more to the sport than London

[Denton Rovers RLFC]

4 hours ago, Ullman said:

Couldn't agree more. Hull could have been overrun given the possession and field position Rovers had, particularly in the second half. The commitment to stay in the game was outstanding and gave us the chance to almost nick it.

Rovers were the better team on the night and deserved the win but the thing that worried me most before the game turned out to be the deciding factor for me and that was the five day turnaround from the game in Perpignan. Hull were clearly knackered and it showed in the type of handling errors and mistakes that teams make when they're out of energy. On the plus side, that gives us a nice long gap to next week's game against Saints. Looking forward to it already.

I don't think Rovers will finish bottom either. Not sure it will be comfortable though. Their run-in looks pretty tough with two trips to Wigan to come among others.

Should it have been an opportunity to play some of the squad players, resting some players for this game and bringing in some fresh meat which could have made the difference? We've seen it before in terms of energy reserves playing tired opposition but with them having almost a full strength first XIII/XVII, Radford did that in a way but it was down to injuries a few Easter Monday's ago, with "a million pounds in the stands" we beat a high flying Warrington with a load of squad players in the side, Warrington on paper should have buried us but their energy levels were well below par as they didn't rotate and it back-fired.

These things have to be looked at long term, yes we could still have lost last night but given the position we are in losing last night was never going to change things that much (similar to St.Helens against London) so resting senior players who were knackered from playing in France and giving some of the squad players the responsibility to beat the local rivals was IMO an ideal time to do it.

As we know, players who are very fatigued are more likely to get an injury or exacerbate a niggle even further, there's also the fatigue at the back end of a hard/long season, which as you'll know is the reason why we floundered in 2016. Hardly any injuries all season so Radford played them without rotation/rests (the Easter Monday game that was solely down to injuries), senior players played throughout and when it came down to the S8s and particularly that game against Warrington to win the League leaders, we were utterly shagged and couldn't get up against the Pies either.

Yes we have a long turnaround now but actually having the rest in between for those players most affected is longer and  more effective at aiding fatigue even more so if players have minor niggles.

It's an aspect of Radford as a coach where I think he is weak/unable to join the dots.

[deluded pom?]

3 hours ago, Bring back GB said:

When a club gets relegated, it will lose some of it's support.

Lost support is a loss to the sport, not just the club, something which our sport cannot afford.

If Leeds were relegated, their crowds would probably drop from 13000 to around 8000 thus 5000 fans lost from the sport.

Bradford have lost nearly 10,000 fans since losing their super league status.

If London go down their crowds would probably fall from 1500 to 700 so nowhere near as damaging to the sport.

It's that simple really.

Leeds and Hull KR bring so much more to the sport than London

Sand it is then. We could always use percentages to make the case. If Leeds lose 5000 from 13000 that’s 38.50%. If London lose  800 of 1500 that’s 53.33%. Who’s had the biggest loss? Your serve.

[Ullman]

1 hour ago, Denton Rovers RLFC said:

Should it have been an opportunity to play some of the squad players, resting some players for this game and bringing in some fresh meat which could have made the difference? We've seen it before in terms of energy reserves playing tired opposition but with them having almost a full strength first XIII/XVII, Radford did that in a way but it was down to injuries a few Easter Monday's ago, with "a million pounds in the stands" we beat a high flying Warrington with a load of squad players in the side, Warrington on paper should have buried us but their energy levels were well below par as they didn't rotate and it back-fired.

These things have to be looked at long term, yes we could still have lost last night but given the position we are in losing last night was never going to change things that much (similar to St.Helens against London) so resting senior players who were knackered from playing in France and giving some of the squad players the responsibility to beat the local rivals was IMO an ideal time to do it.

As we know, players who are very fatigued are more likely to get an injury or exacerbate a niggle even further, there's also the fatigue at the back end of a hard/long season, which as you'll know is the reason why we floundered in 2016. Hardly any injuries all season so Radford played them without rotation/rests (the Easter Monday game that was solely down to injuries), senior players played throughout and when it came down to the S8s and particularly that game against Warrington to win the League leaders, we were utterly shagged and couldn't get up against the Pies either.

Yes we have a long turnaround now but actually having the rest in between for those players most affected is longer and  more effective at aiding fatigue even more so if players have minor niggles.

It's an aspect of Radford as a coach where I think he is weak/unable to join the dots.

When you rein in the Radford bashing you make some good points.