Hound of Dracula
Juniors
- Messages
- 759
Just re - reading my posts on the Cook threadNothing against Cook but can’t help but feel for Liddle
We needed depth at Hooker but IMO Liddle is too good to be the depth behind Cook.
We all complain that no-one wants to play for the Dragons, but Liddle did. After W/T got Api, Liddle wanted to prove himself in first grade – Even opting to play for us
He has won us all over yet here we are celebrating his replacement whilst we lament player loyalty.
Anyone who thinks we will play both Liddle and Cook in “rotation” have rocks in their heads. Struth – we run 4 forwards off the bench.
To me, we needed depth for Liddle but top dollar needed spending on other key areas – not hooker.
I hope he gets another first-grade opportunity elsewhere and I hope he kills it!
Yeah Yeah - Fully expect the "It's a business" response.
This one was posted whilst my jaw was throbbing and I was self medicating with Scotch whisky. Turns out I had a cracked tooth, infected and developed into an abscess. I can tell you - it's the first time in my life I have involuntary screamed in pain when the dentist drill hit the infected nerve.
Anyway just tempering my pain filled rant.
I like Cook and agree with majority of posts supporting his recruitment but I also love Liddle
I don't believe either player offers F%&k all as a 14 other than Hooker
They are both specialist hookers
I also don't believe we can afford to carry specialists on our bench for one position in "rotation"
Would be happy for anyone to explain how it would work (I.E. The full bench rotation) but considering we opt for 4 forwards on our bench with Zero outside back coverage nor any Hooker/Half coverage, I can't fathom it.
I just believe Liddle will end up becoming depth Hooker to Cook, not a bench rotation, because we just don't have the talent to support 2 Hookers = Unfair to Liddle IMO