On this we will have to differ. Putting a young player (and one who has just struggled against Salford) into a patched up team against Warrington would have been asking for bother. I'm glad Agar is making these decisions and not you.



And this isn't supposition?

Did you see the Salford game? It proved that Lynne, whilst a very good prospect, is not ready yet. That Hicks scored 3 tries anyway is immaterial. He might well have scored even more if Lynne had played. Agar got it right. Live with it.

All those who scurried off early?

Some people leave early for various reasons but at the end of the match there were many thousands who stayed behind to show their appreciation for the effort the team put in.

And I'd rather he was making the correct decisions instead of the one he made yesterday.



I don't think it is supposition to say that Hall would be better at centre than Turner, Turner would be better at 6 than Washbrook, Washbrook would be better at 13 than Radford and Radford/Burnett would provide more off the bench than no-one. It's less certain what Lyne would offer, but he'd be playing on the wing, outside a centre who was always going to deal fairly well with his opposite number, so Lyne would have Hicks to deal with and not much else.



It proved that on two occasions in that game he made the wrong call in defence. It might have suggested other things about his readiness, but we'll never know if he's left on the side-line for the rest of his career because he might not be ready. Yesterday was exactly the sort of situation that he should be being turned to, but a lack of willingness to take a risk meant that didn't happen. And that's an endemic problem with the attitude towards the game in this country, both from coaches and fans.

Agar got it wrong. Live with it.

We're going round in circles. The majority seem to think he got it right and you have said yourself that it 'probably' wouldn't have made a difference to the result. As I said, whatever my feelings about Agar (and the jury is definitely still out), I'm glad it was him picking the side yesterday and not the minority on here who seem to think that exposing a 17 year old to a pasting was a good idea.

This is my final word on the subject.

Our wigners and centres did a good job in defence, Lyne would have got murdered. I understand the whole playing a man down but we had little option really.

That's what I was going to ask, who was available and fit to play in Lyne's place?

The rest of his career, he's 17 for gods sake and it's a huge step up from the U20's to SL. He could not handle Broughton and Hicks is a far better player.

Agar had little option and I suggest people live with that.

Liam Kent was 18th man. I'd have rather put him on the bench as a back rower than carry a winger. Saying that he'd have probably got murdered by the big Wire pack.

Indeed, and once bitten, which Agar was with Lynne at Salford, maybe Agar actually got this one right, explained to Lynne he was unlikely to play unless really necessary, but he wanted him to know he is very much part of the future make-up of the senior side, in a way putting his arm around him and building his confidence back slowly.

Had we won, nobody would have mentioned it.

However its not the first time Agar has done this

That's just another way of saying he got it right!

Still think it's too much to ask to compete only having 2 subs once Long was injured. At that point Agar should have decided to use Lyne imo.

Not saying it is, but nobody has come up with a viable alternative and explained why it had more merit than what Agar did.

He still didn't leave some players on the pitch for long enough for me, or even start with the right ones, that is worth debate, but not sending Lynne or Kent into get slaughtered by SL's second best side really doesn't need explaining.

As Agar himself has said, had it been a normal turnaround between games most players would have made it, the short turnaround forced his hand to a great extent.

Im the guys biggest critic, but I also think people should offer alternatives and not just slate the guy.

At 10-16 with the game in the balance both side looked tired and it needed a gamebreaking play (thanks Ganson). At that point I said to my mate that I would bring Lyne on, put Whiting to fullback, Tansey to scrum half and Berro to hooker. Had we given him the ball in the sort of space Whiting got he would not have been caught imo and he would have been a useful kick chase option.

I don't think anyone thinks that exposing him to a pasting would be a good idea.



So at what point is it decided that he is ready? Does he get another first team shot before then or is there some other readiness test? He didn't handle Broughton on a couple of occasions when he made a poor choice in defence. Craig Hall didn't handle Welham on one occasion on Friday, and Broughton is a far better player than Welham. Is Hall not ready?

Players make mistakes. They don't need to be hidden and protected every time they do.

Agar did have an option. It's the one I've been advocating throughout this thread. It's also the one I immediately suggested upon seeing which players were warming up. Given the players available, I though the team picked itself. Evidently not.



I have. Repeatedly.

I would say he needs at least the rest of this season in the U20's and a full offseason and then look at using him from next season, when he will still be only 18. Why is he ready? Doing well in the U20's, it's nowhere near SL.

Broughton killed him for power, nevermind bad decision making. I don't want to see his confidence taking a huge battering and he also played two days earlier.

I would have put him on for the last 20 mins when Wire were tiring and that is where I thought Agar made an error, not a chance I would have started him from the off.

I'd have done exactly what you said. Our tiredness in the last 20 mins really cost us, we were in it til then.

I don't know if he is ready. Yesterday would've been a good chance to see.




He only had the chance to use his power because of Lyne's poor decisions. Those decisions are the type of thing that a young player learns from quickly.



Also a viable option, especially with Long off meaning that Berrigan had to move from hooker (which also cost us a huge amount, with Houghton having a poor game). Either way, it'd be better than attempting to play with a man short all game just three days after most of the rest of the team have had a tough, tiring match.

Not 100% sure about that, Ganson was doing a great job of demoralising us too!

On a seperate note, yesterday showed that Houghton is nowhere near ready to play the full 80 or ready to take over from Berro, apart from the odd scoot he was poor. He gave some awful balls and made several wrong decisions.

His scooting again was poor generally too. It's as though he goes purely at random, with little consideration given to whether or not the markers/line are set. A couple of times he went with a set defence and made no more than a couple of yards. At other times, we got a quick play with a marker not in position and he failed to go, handing it on to someone who had no option but to run wide of the ruck into a set line. It's something he really needs to work on and in Berrigan he couldn't have a better example to follow. Hopefully the next year and a half or learning will be enough for him to progress.

Berrigan was outstanding in the 15-20 minutes he had at hooker.

Indeed, Houghton appears to have gone backwards a little from what I have seen over the Easter period, very questionable decision making at times.

Berrigan had a really good game, shame he had to come out of dummy half. Losing Long was a real double whammy with Barro having to move.

Dead right ..You could see he was going to get Warrington more point When the crowd sang you don't know what you are doing ..I told people sat near me he does