You're kidding arent you? Firstly the Raiders notoriously dont play well away and no Matt Orford is going to improve that, but the Tigers are a top 4 side played accordingly last night.
Raiders 'notoriously' don't play well? Is that just an excuse? Home or away teams have an obligation to perform wherever the location and had Raiders fielded Orford on that night the result could've been better, had an absolute shocker he did.
The Raiders wont be far behind them by seasons end. He's a perfect fit for the Raiders. He's 10 times better than Robson, thats for sure.
Oh his career has certainly been 10 times better than Robson, but if you watched the game you'd probably agree that atm he's not much better than Robson. Maybe he will improve as the season goes on, but he's older than Robson and just as unlikely to improve at this point.
Why dont you go and ask the Raiders if they will swap Orford for Jeff Robson and Daniel Mortimer? So two players for the price of one and see what your response will be......
Well if I said Robson and Mortimer sh*t over Orford then I'd gladly go and ask, what I said is that based on Orfords current form he'd have been more of a hindrance for Parra.
Perhaps what I say re: Orford is mostly in hindsight but now that I've seen his form the past 2 games i'm not complaining that the club passed up on him, heck it's better than arguing that Parra should've kept him off of a loose hypothetical and too many 'what ifs'.