Glad someone gets the point. Kay and Goulding are natural stand offs. You lose your stand off, so just replace with a stand off. Before Sykes was injured we were playing something like, he gets injured and the team has 2 or 3 positional changes instead of one.After Bradford loss, not very likely that we were going to make the 8, so give the fringe players a go. Annakin not been seen for ages, perfect opportunity to play him til end of season. Or does the size of the contract decide who is better than who?

I don't really agree with this.
In principle I would always play players in their correct positions.

In practise you can't always do that.
In my opinion Agar decided that Goulding or Kay would have been targetted if started against Leeds or Bradford. Two important games that could have made a massive difference to our fortunes this year.
Playing Washbrook in hindsight stunted our creativity but it improved our defense considerably.
He decided it was better to do that.

It doesn't mean he doesn't rate the kids
It doesn't mean he should be sacked on the strength of the decision
It is just one of those decisions that he has to make when short on numbers.

I remember us playing Morton and Handfort when both made a mistake on tv. The 'fans' rounded on them and their confidence went completely.
He possibly tried them in training and decided they weren't ready yet, and protected them until they are.

I don’t think it took any major hindsight to come to the conclusion that Washbrook would offensively offer nothing at 6, if it wasn't obvious before the first Leeds game it would've been patently obvious afterwards.

With respect to opposition targeting the young players, half backs are always are target, be it Tim Smith, Lee Briers, Rob Burrow, Sam Tomkins (when he played there) Johnny Lomax etc. Age and experience doesn’t come into it.

Morton was unfairly hounded on I agree, but when he initially broke into the side he did well and was encouraged. His development was handled in the wrong way, but that shouldn’t mean young players should not get an opportunity in a big game. Liam Sutcliffe made his debut (or was very early into his professional career) for Leeds against Wire. They didn’t decide to play Brett Delany there just because a great, very experienced team in Warrington may target him. In fact he had a blinder and McDermott was rewarded for the brave decision to put faith in an inexperienced young player.

Agree with the above. Agar has in hindsight messed around too much this season with players in different positions. Unlike the top teams where players have their positions and roles we have seen 2/3 positional changes just to accommodate different players at 6. Smacks of amatuerism really.

Surely, Kay, Goulding both natural halfs should have been given the 6 role and encouraged. Also resulting in not moving players from their natural positions.

Agar did a great job last year but this year there has been some puzzling decisions this season.

The crux of that issue is that Goulding is not Liam Sutcliffe
If he'd been at our club he'd have been playing in front of Sykes.

Washbrook offering nothing in attack was obviously balanced with him offering a lot in defense. I guess they decided to see if the other players could balance it out...Mathers and Lee Smith for example. It didn't work. But it wasn't imho a terrible decision, it was just a decision that didn't work. Not the same thing.
A terrible decision would have been to put a kid in that wasn't ready.
(I clearly don't know whether Kay or Goulding were ready or not) I'm assuming Agar assessed that himself and made his decision based on that.

In conclusion;
Whats done is done.

Richard said months ago that Washy was struggling with ball in hand.
Yet he played him at 6 twice, I'm confused by this, why not use a proper 6 in L Kay or BG.
He also said Damny Cowling would have to wait untill Collis got injured to get a run.
Not really developing our young guns is it.

When there was talk on here about bring BG in, wasn't there the opinion here that after seeing him at Doncaster, he wasn't ready for SL/wasn't SL standard? So why now are some posters saying he should have been selected earlier?

It's Ok saying Kay & Goulding not ready yet. But having them sat on the bench/not playing them/them playing championship on dual regards isn't going to get them ready is it. Goulding played well for the 15-20 mins he was on the pitch on Sunda. Inches away from a 40/20 had saints not kept it iin play, and he did a great kick over for cockayne, only for Ben to drop it over the line. Did more and looked more interested than Tim Smith did all game.

I have to say that one of the criticisms I do agree with is RA's habit of shifting a team around to accommodate rather than slotting in a youngster; personally, I'd have been content with Kay at 6 immediately that it became obvious that Washy was useless there, and if he'd had a couple of stinkers, I wouldn't have been too critical. Plenty on here would though, and that's the difficulty of being a SL coach - you are more often than not damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

Personally, I'd be happy to sit Timmy down for the last two games of the season and put Goulding and Kay at 6 and 7; lets have a proper look at them and see what they can do - it worked for Tomkins, Lineham, Sutcliffe, Escare, Swift etc etc, it might just work for us.

I watched him play for Doncaster and he had a poor game and didn't look at the time a SL player but that was just the one game. Saying that since he moved from Donny to Dewsbury from what I've heard from friends that have watched him, he's been playing very well. He's still a young player that should be improving all the time and has probably done so at Dewsbury, so I'd stick him in and see what he ca do in the remaining games.

Geoffrey Boycott likes to quote how his old Mum could do a better job. I know what he means. We don't have a fantastic squad but we have a reasonable amount of talent. We haven't had a fortune to spend but we seem to have dipped into the coffers more than we did for Kear, though of course, I haven't seen the figures. We have been, save for a few matches, a disorganised, error strewn rabble, who put some good tries together and who the impartials like to watch cos we can be entertaining....entertaining losers who never learn. A coach who knew to play players IN position and knew how to work the bench would have had us 2 top 8 finishes(in 8th probably) by rights and not by Bradford's pts deduction. I am staggered at the support Agar gets. His decisions are hopeless generally and the team a shambles except in spurts. Who else could we get? I don't care, nothing can be as bad as the utter crap I've witnessed this year and if some on here haven't noticed that I despair. Though it looks like events off the field may take precedence and Agar will probabaly be gone cos we can't pay him. One silver lining

NO HE DIDN'T!!

If he is at Belle Vue for 2 more years, I will struggle to be. It won't get any better, never under Agar. It won't. What has he done in his entire coaching career? Nothing at this level.We look an uncoached shambles. It is a sign or our desparation if we keep him on

Can't understand why they would extend Agars contract, when there is still a year to run. People talk about continuity and a settled environment but he could sign a two year deal this time next year. Last year it was great to go 7 unbeaten, when a team goes on a run like that, coaching is easy. It's this year when the going gets tough that the coach needs to earn his corn and for me in the last month or so Agar hasn't. Bradford and Sunday were really winable games but to see the lack of ideas on Sunday was rubbish.

7 decent matches = a lucky run. 1 decent match this season = failure. 54-8 = enough evidence to say goodbye. If we look at Kear's record it fairly closely correlates to the talent he had available, because, contrary to the opinion of some, he is a decent coach who knows the value of basics, the legendary game management, or as he puts it, the process of Rugby League...which remains a simple game. You cannot play without controlling the football; something we singularly fail to do and have done since Agar took over. The poor squad of Kear's last season may have offered nothing in attack but competed way way above the staffing ability because they stuck to a plan, dull as it was. This Agar coached team has one plan...try to score, every play, risk, risk ,risk, frenetic, never mind match situation, what match situation? Every week the same. Are they asleep as Agar talks? Probabaly. I am. He is out of his depth. 2 years more. Sorry. Not for me.

Sure, a lucky 7 game winning streak! I've heard it all now.

If he had a side filled with creativity and plenty of "skill factor" I would agree with you, but we don't. We have a team assembled of players that other clubs dont particularly want for whatever reason, as soon as they come good, they go to a bigger/richer club. It has been this way since we entered Superleague - we don't even have a backup half back!

It's obviously a matter of opinion but I have found the last 2 seasons much more preferable to the last season of JK's 5 drives and a kick. I too wouldn't be offering a new deal at this stage, but definitely willing to let him have a go next year, if no progress made then fair enough, you can tell me you told me so.

Next year Agar will have a squad of players that are virtually all his own. If he can't get them to play more consistently next season, he never will. Limited finances do come into play when you coach at a club like Wake but the resources that he had at Hull would have been a little bit more. Look at the players he had at his disposal and never cracked any pots.

The glaringly obvious at the moment is the amount of errors we're making with ball in hand. In the last 6 games if we'd have made one or two less errors we'd be sitting on another 4 or 5 wins....and look where that would put us (on the edge of the top six for those wondering)

what has to happen now is for Agar to coach those errors out of the team.....can he do it? thats the question, and if he cant, we have to question his suitability for the job in my opinion.

its a very fine margin between finishing in the playofs and finishing 12 and at the moment, we look like we're going to finish 12th and for me, that isnt good enough.

Lets try and outscore the opposition is our style of play and our defence is terrible more so on the left side.The Saints side of 3-4 year ago would have slaughtered us down that left side on sunday I could see time and again they had a decent overlap but they didnt go for it for some reason so that was a blessing.If Agar was to stay one things for sure we need a real good well versed defensive coach as an assistant or we will go no further

Has anyone else at Hull?

The efffect of Agar's release of Andy Ellis should not be underestimated.
Neither should the loss of Mariano next season.

Aiton> Ellis

Tuson> Mariano

Aiton is a better player than Ellis but I reckon Ellis is a better 9, and the release of Wood (who I never rated) and the reluctance to play Wildie has left us short at hooker. Any how it's been done to death.

Tuson looks a promising signing but I'll wait and see how he performs in an average side before comparing him with Mariano. Put Frankie in that Wigan side and he would be devestating.

Agreed.

The fact that Ellis remains at Fev and wasn't snapped up by a SL club then or since, suggests that the view on here that he's some kind of Cameron Smith super-hooker is not one that's shared by other SL coaches.

As for Tuson v Mariano - as much as Frankie has done some good stuff, I think we'll get more out of Tuson.