The UAFC

BaggyTrousers wrote:I long for the days whenRuckie used to name a team, only to be a few wide of the mark, so in that vein, I shall make a stab at :

Gilroy
Kernohan
Addison
McCloskey
Stockdale
Burns
Cooney
Warwick
Best
Kane
O'Connor
Hendy
Coetzee
Murphy
Timoney

Hond, Herring, Moore, Treadwell (though give me Clive Ross any day )Reidy, Shanners (Give me p or Stewart any day) Lowry, Curtis.

Back in mcglock’s day i think we used to name about a 35 man initial match squad on a Tuesday....and then pick the same 15.
Nowadays we aspire to be able to name 23 fit players each week.

BaggyTrousers wrote:

redadare wrote:ulster no 9 During that game you have posted, the referee called the 2 captains together when things were getting a bit heated. He said something like "Calm everyone down. We are all enjoying a good game" Murphy replied " I'm Not"

hopefully you can post it.

That was the always hilarious Roman Polite, a fine ref since he recovered from his disgraceful reffing of the scrum in the Saints v Ulster game atilton Keynes.

I think that was just after Mincer dumped the Lions backrow (and Stuart Barnes crush) Tom Croft into touch...

BaggyTrousers wrote:I long for the days whenRuckie used to name a team, only to be a few wide of the mark, so in that vein, I shall make a stab at :

Gilroy
Kernohan
Addison
McCloskey
Stockdale
Burns
Cooney
Warwick
Best
Kane
O'Connor
Hendy
Coetzee
Murphy
Timoney

Hond, Herring, Moore, Treadwell (though give me Clive Ross any day )Reidy, Shanners (Give me p or Stewart any day) Lowry, Curtis.

[pedantry]
...
Herring, Hond ...

[/pedantry]

Eggs wrote:Addison starting alone would get us somewhere

Start at 13 ?

Rooster wrote:

Eggs wrote:Addison starting alone would get us somewhere

Start at 13 ?

Only if it doesn’t mean Nelson at 15, in my opinion. Would like to see Lowry 10, Addison 13 and Burns 15 but I suspect Burns 10, Addison 13, Gilroy 15 is more likely.

Curve ball would be Hume or Moore at 13.

We’ll all know shortly anyway.

LegsLikeSausages wrote:

Rooster wrote:

Eggs wrote:Addison starting alone would get us somewhere

Start at 13 ?

Only if it doesn’t mean Nelson at 15, in my opinion. Would like to see Lowry 10, Addison 13 and Burns 15 but I suspect Burns 10, Addison 13, Gilroy 15 is more likely.

Curve ball would be Hume or Moore at 13.

We’ll all know shortly anyway.

It would be some baptism of fire for young Hume or Moore. If this season is all about learning and putting the building blocks in place for the future this is as good a time as any to go for it. Curtis will certainly be better at 13 this week than he was last week, I'd also happily give him a lash at it. The problem is there are far too many supporters still scoreboard result driven rather than team progress driven....

I've always had a theory that young lads always have a much better first season than second mainly because of the amount of video analysis done these days. Throwing a nipper in which Leicester will have no tape on but we believe has the potential to make it may be no bad thing.

LegsLikeSausages wrote:

Rooster wrote:

Eggs wrote:Addison starting alone would get us somewhere

Start at 13 ?

Only if it doesn’t mean Nelson at 15, in my opinion. Would like to see Lowry 10, Addison 13 and Burns 15 but I suspect Burns 10, Addison 13, Gilroy 15 is more likely.

Curve ball would be Hume or Moore at 13.

We’ll all know shortly anyway.

Moore is in the SDC squad but Hume is not.

LegsLikeSausages wrote:

Rooster wrote:

Eggs wrote:Addison starting alone would get us somewhere

Start at 13 ?

Only if it doesn’t mean Nelson at 15, in my opinion. Would like to see Lowry 10, Addison 13 and Burns 15 but I suspect Burns 10, Addison 13, Gilroy 15 is more likely.

Curve ball would be Hume or Moore at 13.

We’ll all know shortly anyway.

I would prefer him at 15 with Curtis given the chance. Would also be happy enough with Addison 13 and Gilroy at 15.

Don’t think Nelson is adding anything, would give him more game time through the season tho- feel he still hasn’t fully recovered from being forced into 10 for a season

Dave wrote:

LegsLikeSausages wrote:

Rooster wrote:

Eggs wrote:Addison starting alone would get us somewhere

Start at 13 ?

Only if it doesn’t mean Nelson at 15, in my opinion. Would like to see Lowry 10, Addison 13 and Burns 15 but I suspect Burns 10, Addison 13, Gilroy 15 is more likely.

Curve ball would be Hume or Moore at 13.

We’ll all know shortly anyway.

Moore is in the SDC squad but Hume is not.

Didn’t know that.

UlsterNo9 wrote:

LegsLikeSausages wrote:

Rooster wrote:

Eggs wrote:Addison starting alone would get us somewhere

Start at 13 ?

Only if it doesn’t mean Nelson at 15, in my opinion. Would like to see Lowry 10, Addison 13 and Burns 15 but I suspect Burns 10, Addison 13, Gilroy 15 is more likely.

Curve ball would be Hume or Moore at 13.

We’ll all know shortly anyway.

It would be some baptism of fire for young Hume or Moore. If this season is all about learning and putting the building blocks in place for the future this is as good a time as any to go for it. Curtis will certainly be better at 13 this week than he was last week, I'd also happily give him a lash at it. The problem is there are far too many supporters still scoreboard result driven rather than team progress driven....

I've always had a theory that young lads always have a much better first season than second mainly because of the amount of video analysis done these days. Throwing a nipper in which Leicester will have no tape on but we believe has the potential to make it may be no bad thing.

Yeah, everyone keeps saying this is a transition season. No point saying that then not transitioning. Not that long ago that the Weegies were where we are now and they chucked in a very young Finn Russell amongst others and gave them a lash.

Love that backline.

Dave wrote:Love that backline.

If our props can avoid being schooled, we’ve got a decent chance

LegsLikeSausages wrote:

Dave wrote:Love that backline.

If our props can avoid being schooled, we’ve got a decent chance

I think they will scrum us off the park.