I've just read in the HDM how out dyanmic leader is struggling to know where to play Briscoe. For me, the problem is less difficult or complex than he's making it.

Firstly, Tansey's our Full-Back. He's growing in that role, and we need a full-back - so, Mr Tinkerman, don't make a change you don't need to. Keep him as Fullback.

If Raynor and Calderwood are fit, FORM (and I mean relative to the whole team), suggests you have the wing pair sorted...... No Change.

First debate is the centres. This is where we struggle. In recent months NOBODY has shone there. Yeaman's been sterile for 2 years, Hall looks lively and has not PROVED yet that he CAN'T play there, but nor made himself a definite. Graeme Horne is a last option centre for me. So, Briscoe, who's fav. position is centre, should be locked down NOW. The only question is, 2nd centre. For me, it's hall, with Yeaman waiting to pounce if Briscoe or Hall fail, but it could be the other way.

Then, you go to the halfs - the MAIN problem area. Bottom line is, no Horne due to injury, Nor Thorman cause he's had too many chances, and simply can't take it. If washbrooke's available, I'd play him at loose forward, Radford's a joke there. Therefore I would make the half backs Berrigan and Whiting, with Lee on the Bench.

Pack : Cordoda and King to start, Dowes and Moa on bench. Houghton at hooker. Manu, Tickle in 2nd row. Radford at Loose if Washy's out, Radford has the last bench spot if he isn't. If Radford's at loose, Lauaki on bench, or Hall/Yeaman if not.

HOW HARD CAN IT BE !!!!!! - unless you have other ideas........................ if you do, I can see why AGAR can't choose.

Is this part of the TELL US feature ?

????????????????/ com on then Hutchie, giz a clue mate

So where would you play Whiting then if not in the centre?

loose forward maybe???

Loose Forward in place of Washbrook. Bigger, stronger and a broader range of attacking skills.

Apart from that for me he's a bench player that gives Agar options to move the team around.

Why rush to bring him (Briscoe) back for such a nothing game anyway?

Washy is a miles better 13 than whiting, whitings problem is that every position he plays we have somebody better.

Rubbish.

It's impossible to say that one is 'miles' better than the other. They both bring different skills and attributes to the position.

Whiting's problem is that he hasn't had the opportunity to play in one position for an extended period because he's so versatile that as soon as we get a few injuries, he's shunted about all over the place to fill in. That, and the fact that he's had a few injuries of his own.

Give him a run at 6 or 13 and he'll produce the goods, I'm certain.

I think if Whiting had been showing enough on the training field to suggest he was a good 6 then he'd have been put there before now given we've been carp at 1/2 back for 3 years now.

I think he has the skills to be a good 13, whether he has the physical presence to be a success there I'm not sure. Fact is that most coaches now prefer a glorified 2nd rower rather than a ball handler probably means we'll never really see him there anyway

Disagree. He was injured for pretty much the entire 2008. Thorman and Horne have been given chance after chance in 2009. And 2007 we had Matty Head and Horne who played well. He's not a 7, and Horne has pretty much always had 6 nailed down.

And for some reason we don't play loose forwards at 13 at this club.

I don't reckon any coach would consider dropping Horne, do you? He's also been injured for a lot of that time, which hasn't helped. Then there's the fact that our current coaching set up can't see what's right under their noses. Take the fact that Radford has played 13 all season as an example.



I think he and Washbrook would both make good 13s, but for different reasons. The fact that Washy is nearer to the glorified 2nd rower you mentioned means that he will probably get the nod next year. To start with, at least.