I don,t think its poor coaching but probably match tactics, we where looking pretty good the first part of the season and a lot more entertaining. KC is probably playing a limited percentage game at the moment because of the absence of pivotal players, everything is coming off Burns at the moment and is using the pack to give Burns options which is a bit one dimensional at times.

We have not had a settled 1st choice attacking 1 to 7 for 2 or 3 consecutive games and thats how it will be for the rest of the season, so KC is on a learning curve on what situations work best without too much experimentation.

I would disagree with that. Regardless of who has been on the pitch this season we have been playing the same style, and giving away as many penalties, and the odd try here and there aside, we have been dull to watch. We do seem to have stopped the interception gifts though.

Has anybody got any stats for this game, not seen anything official yet.

No stats yet, but just seen the highlights. Looked to be a very tight game.



That first try requiring 3 kicks just showed how hard Hull were to break down. Low scoring can mean that sides are playing poorly, but it can also mean both sides are playing well and defending well.



Some of the best games are 7-4, 10 - 8.



It does not have to be points galore to show you are a good side.

I agree. We have looked poor in attack for most of the Season with our moments tho look pretty good.



I'm willing to give KC a fair crack tho. We've lost Lomax who was one of our biggest threats with ball in hand. Other teams fear lomax and back off him which gives us space.



Vea and greenwood was going very well on the edges and causing trouble for teams. Vea has been massive loss, his workrate is 2nd to none and helped put the props.



Percy is another whos a threat on the edge with ball who's missed large chunks of the season.



We all know what walsh can do.

And we lost Charnock mid game so that's another reshuffling which does not help our attack.



To be honest I had forgotten about Greenwood and Vea being out. They will add something in attack, but Vea was also pretty solid defensively.



We've got a fair few strike players out.

I think our discipline has been our worse enemy especially on the 5th tackle to give the opposition another 6. A lot of games we,ve not played smart and we,ve gone down the one dimensional route. The potential is there its just performing in the right mind set.

I see Hull's Setaimata Sa faced no charge for his shoulder charge on Charnock as it was deemed "should to shoulder".



Was this the incident which forced our lad off?

Hardly a match in sizes.

superleague.co.uk/report/11151 stats now up quick looks says Walmesley and Amor were the heros

superleague.co.uk/report/11151 stats now up quick looks says Walmesley and Amor were the heros

Luke Thompson's defence is disappointing. To miss 5 tackles as a forward when you didn't make all that many (relative to others) to start with isn't good. Walmsley's metres are huge again. He's been top metre maker every week so far. I notice as a team we made fewer metres than Hull and fewer breaks than Hull. I wonder where they made their breaks? Eight in a game is quite high.

Just watched that 1st try again against Hull. It gets better every time I watch it. Slightly reminiscent of the never say die, entertaining rugby we used to see when Cunningham, Long, Martyn etc played. Keeping the ball alive at all costs to break down a very tight defence.



Cunningham's doing a top job so far imo.

I think you really need to look at each tackle before jumping to conclusions. Many teams this season are employing bump-and-run tactics which makes it very difficult for defenders in a one-on-one situation. The statistician's pen suggests all missed tackles are equally bad. But you don't need to spend much time watching the game to realise some players are more culpable than others.