Breathingfire
Juniors
- Messages
- 1,575
What exactly did Soward say and when?
Bennett chose Nightingale for fullback; now I know that he's clueless but he may even (on rare occasion) have better judgement than you. Why not wait and see?
You've missed the point. Im not debating whether he can play fullback. He will make a good fist of it and not let anyone down (as i mentioned earlier). What i am debating is-
1. the reason he was picked at fullback, which i see as Bennett going with a safe option. Stanley is untried at fullback and throwing a young player into that position with no previous experience can be dangerous. Nightingale is obviously safe under the highball etc.
2. Nightingales ball playing ability. It just doesn't feel right. Substituting Boyd with a player in the mould of Nightingale just doesn't feel right. Can you really see Nightingale running perfect lines and throwing perfect passes left and right, or creating something out of nothing? I can see him running around in circles and throwing lollipops. Stanley has the creativity and natural ball playing ability to be 100 times more effective in that position. Nightingale is one of the great wingers of the game and takes alot of pressure of our forwards. That is his strength. Morris was another who was tried at fullback and we all saw how that went. Some players are just specialist wingers.
3. why every time something is mentioned about the fullback position, you start carrying on about what a superstar fullback Nightingale is. And i fail to see it. I do however understand that this is just a difference of opinion and that is ok. It just appears that you are a bit obsessed with this idea of nightingale at fullback and Nightingale is this and nightingale is that. It just seems a bit starry eyed, thats all. But i could be wrong. I don't know you so apologies if im wrong.
And yes you are quite right. I should just wait and see. Hopefully Nighty puts egg on my face.
Last edited: