Mike Hall & Brynmor Williams - What Are They Both On.

Both said Hook should start against Scotland next week and Brynmor said Hook had a fantastic game when he came on, well for me they are both nuts and have lost the plot.

Take kicking duties off Priestland and just let him run the game, he was thrown in at deep end Pre WC and just got better so let him be. As for Hook having a great game, did he? He had a good game and done waht was asked of him but great come on Brynmpr be fair.

Yea pretty strange suggestion by them. I mean unless they know something we don't about Priestland's fitness he should start and Hook should be on the bench.

Preistland kicked rather well from hand and was excellent with ball in hand. It was clear he was not fully fit and that was badly effecting his rythm when kicking at goal though and it was a little bit silly for Wales to let him struggle rather than to let Halfpenny who is a fine points kicker take over.

Hook did okay I guess, wouldn't say he was excellent though and I thought the young lad on the wing in the first half offered more pace and general threat in attack. Having said that if Parks is going to play for Scotland then solidarity at the back may be a high priority as there will plenty of kicks to field.

Where would Hook play? Halfpenny is a better 15, Priestland was the best attacking 10 in the competition this weekend by FAR and is a much better 10 than Hook who backs himself too often but doesn't have the qualities of a Shane Williams to pull it off enough to make up for the chances outside him squandered. Both your centres are in a different class to Hook if they can play and even injured Roberts is better in every way except goal kicking. If you move Halfpenny on the wing and take Cuthbert off, maybe? Hook looked good but he was not amazing by any stretch of the imagination. His best position is 21/22 where he can come on to change the game (he is a very different player to all those he is replacing) and cover lots of positions

Bedford, have you got any links or quotations?

lp,

Only what was on the Scrum V programme last night sorry, mind you the look on Shanklins face was picture when Hall said we should look at Hook again at 10 lol

Fair enough, Bedford. From my point of view, Hook was good in that he didn't f*ck up yesterday, but why the hell should he be brought into a winning team?

I thought everyone apart from Shanklin was talking a load of bolloxxs on Scrum V - They were still too excited and eulogising about Wales - they were worse than most fans. Hook FFS after Priestland played better with 1 leg. Pure welsh shamaturism from Lyn Jones, Hall etc. Actually found it embarassing to watch with total disrespect to Scotland apart from Shanks

He shouldn't. I hope that Gatland only considers him as a starting flyhalf. It ain't fair on him.
I don't mind him coming onto different positions if there are injuries or players out of their depth (Cuthbert) but only then.

lp,

yeah he didn't have a bad game, he cam on and done what he had to do but thats about it.

The way Brynmor and Hall were going on you thought it was the Hook one man show FFS

Priestland was fantastic.

One stupid kick for no reason to the dead ball zone and a few missed goal kicks.

If Halfpenny kicks goals then Priestland will have a mainly faultless display.

Hook should be the Wales bench utility back. He jack of all trades, master of none. He can come off the bench and do a good job at 10, 12, 13 and 15.

Hall and Brynmor are entitled to their opinions, but they should be given the opportunity to develop their arguments. Scrum V is a hopeless mess of a show. Brynmors analysis is so short and superficial as to be worthless.
Why can't anyone provide meaningful analysis instead of jumping round the studio like its saturday morning childrens TV.

Messymesina wrote:Hall and Brynmor are entitled to their opinions, but they should be given the opportunity to develop their arguments. Scrum V is a hopeless mess of a show. Brynmors analysis is so short and superficial as to be worthless.
Why can't anyone provide meaningful analysis instead of jumping round the studio like its saturday morning childrens TV.

They are excellent points, the show is cringeworthy - welsh sychophants at their worse. The doe eyed interview with Ian Gough ffs - This was not a serious rugby show - it was appalling

Messy, I don't know why they changed the format, it was fine as it was: the presenter and a couple of pundits in a TV studio. What I want is analysis of the game, what went wrong, what went right and what's going to happen in the next game. What I don't want is a chat show in a rugby club.

luckless_pedestrian wrote:Fair enough, Bedford. From my point of view, Hook was good in that he didn't f*ck up yesterday, but why the hell should he be brought into a winning team?

As Luckless says the best thing you can say about Hook is that he didn't mess up - but everytime he had the ball he ignored the support, tried to go it alone - didn't have the physicality/pace/shanesque agility to force his way through and was smothered by 2-3 irish players who forced him back 5 yards, lost us momentum and would have lost the ball if not for the hard work of the Welsh midfield.

His kick was good and he seemed steady under the high ball but other than that there's not much you can say for or against his performance.

Smirnoffpriest wrote:

luckless_pedestrian wrote:Fair enough, Bedford. From my point of view, Hook was good in that he didn't f*ck up yesterday, but why the hell should he be brought into a winning team?

As Luckless says the best thing you can say about Hook is that he didn't mess up - but everytime he had the ball he ignored the support, tried to go it alone - didn't have the physicality/pace/shanesque agility to force his way through and was smothered by 2-3 irish players who forced him back 5 yards, lost us momentum and would have lost the ball if not for the hard work of the Welsh midfield.

His kick was good and he seemed steady under the high ball but other than that there's not much you can say for or against his performance.

+1 everytime he had the ball my heart would be faster and it wasn't the exciting kind like when George gets the ball

I know what you mean - when I saw he was coming on at FB I had a sinking feeling in my stomach thinking he'd screw up or get exposed defensively, but fair play he didn't - but I wasn't comfortable.

priest,

He didn't but was that more down to Ireland failure to expose him?

bedfordwelsh wrote:priest,

He didn't but was that more down to Ireland failure to expose him?

I don't know Bedford and have no real wish to find out - I just pray Gats doesn't put him (and us) in that position again...

luckless_pedestrian wrote:Messy, I don't know why they changed the format, it was fine as it was: the presenter and a couple of pundits in a TV studio. What I want is analysis of the game, what went wrong, what went right and what's going to happen in the next game. What I don't want is a chat show in a rugby club.

Lucky
Regular season Scrum V, watched by day in day out rugby fans
Scrum V 6 Nations Special - let's appeal to the sparkly red cowboy hat brigade Opitomised by ot being hosted by Jason "great too see you" Mohammed . Dumbed down TV at it's worst Shanks was excellent throughout the program I thought and Lyn Jones did offer some good analysis Apart from that I thought it was urine poor. If Andy Robinson thought England arrogant, I hope he didn't watch the programme