According to R Humberside, when the players asked Agar, what they should do (go for two after the penalty) he supposedly said "do what you want"

Thankfully Tickle went for the two, but (if true) why couldn't Agar tell them to do that?

Had Agar lost it with them and had thrown the towel in, or did he just want them to make the choice?

I think sometimes players have a better grasp of whats happening on the pitch than the coach so would always promote them to decide for themselves

IMO the decision of 2 points or a kick in to touch should be taken by the on field captain.
Purely on the basis of he can ask whether they have the energy to go again or would prefer to take what's on offer to have a breather and regroup.

Agreed with what has already been said. The players tend to have a better idea of where the game is going and how they are playing.

Just don't end up like us in 2003 and turn down 2 points to level up a CC final and lost by 2.

Typo fixed






















sorry I simply could not resist

My thoughts entirelyly Ian, once again something taken in the wrong context!!!!

Surely "do what you want" isn't the phrase that was used though.

"Don't bother me, I'm watching the rovers match" maybe?

That's more likely

you reckon he had a large wager on both teams for the draw?

Having spoken to someone who was sitting in the stand nearby Agar, they interpretted the comment to be that Agar was that disgusted/frustrated with the way we were playing that you may as well do what you like, you've ignored everything I've said so far anyway. Much like a wife does !

The stuff some prople hear huh


What actually happened was RA said " ask your captain"
which seems a logical answer to me as he is jonny on the spot and knows how it is going better than anyone on the touchline..
you will see on a week to week basis RA rarely gets involved in on field during game time personally but leaves it to the senior players to follow the game plan set pre match like most coaches do and then fixes things re personell changes as he goes along..

At what point in the game was the penalty awarded?

If it was whilst Sean Long was on the park then i think that it was perfectly reasonable for Agar to expect his skipper and playmaker to make the call.
If it was after Longs exit, especially given that your 2 other main leaders O'Meley and Fitzgibbon were absent, then Agars response (in whatever manner he put it across) was incorrect in my opinion and i would expect him to be spoken to by James Rule for failing to help his team who clearly needed his guidence.

Fine with that, shows confidence in your players to make the right choice and gives them responsibility they'll hopefully respond to.



I have a real problem with this, and have done for the duration of his term. This approach essentially means that if things aren't going well we write off the game. Unacceptable IMO, we should always be trying to win and attempt to rescue any situation. If he can see areas to improve, he should get off his backside and see that the necessary things are done there and then, not wait until after the game and try again next week. It's a bad enough attitude in general, but of no help at all in cup and playoff games.

I'm pretty sure Long was still on the pitch, I seem to recall it being him who handed Tickle the ball.

Agar was right in what he said then. If anything he should be giving the players a blast for trying to by-pass their skipper, who lets be fair is a heck of a lot more experienced than Agar is!

Agree. I've actually wondered before how it must affect players when they are told by the coach to take the 2 when they feel a try might be on. Could potentially undermine the confidence they feel the coach has in them.

No, it was after Long was taken off, with only about 15 mins left to go.

Not sure if Radford was still on the pitch at the time.

Class....so basically Agar is like Mike Bassett...

"Do what the feck you want"





Seriously of course the team on the pitch should be making the decisions, they are the onesz on the field who know if they have a chance of getting over the whitewash or not etc..

Under normal circumstances, you could be right.
Perhaps (since Long was taken off) they were unsure what to do. No leader and no play maker.

I think at the time they had Cats on the back foot, but they were struggling to get over the line, especially with Long being off.

It still makes me laugh knowing you should have took the two

Don't give a toss what gets heard in actual fact or how Agar is/isn't involved in match decision making, was merely passing on something that was passed on to me seeing as the OP was asking about Agar's tone. Indeed as you say, the stuff people hear. For all the people who postulate they have the inside track or first class honours in lip reading, someone has to be incorrect.

At the end of the day these are professional experienced rugby players...they should know exactly what is happening, they should know how hard the game is etc, they should have an inkling if they stand a chance of getting over the whitewash, they are the ones taking the hits....we can all sit in hindsight and say you should take the 2 etc, but we are not the ones on the pitch playing the game....If you noticed on Friday Washy stood up to the plate and started organising, there is always an organiser on a pitch, the problems is some organise better than others, the problem we now face is Longs biggest asset is organising....

...and his hair...

Captain Jack Sparrow