Was he Hell....believe it was 4 and he lost the 1st one V Leeds.

Then went on to win the next 13 games

Check the website

Did he?

Agar himself claims to have had little to do with our winning run. The players, having got rid of Kear, knuckled down and fought for each other. There were no significant changes to the team or the way they played. Agar's contribution was to basically stand back and let them get on with it.

Wasn't sharp in charge by then?

And when did PS arrive?

Its wrong.......Sharp was here for the Wigan match but let Agar continue with it.

well he did did contribute then, he managed it as he saw fit, wonder who picked the squad, the waterboy maybeicon_lol.gif

The squad was the same as when Kear was picking it.

I agree and disagree, the players attitude was poor under Kear and they obviously wanted to impress their new coach also...but I think Sharp deserves some credit for sorting the defense and intensity out, we started playing for 80mins every week whereas even under Kear we'd blow hot and cold and lose games we were dominating (managing to lose a 16 or 18-0 lead at half time to wigan at home in 2005 being a prime example)

unfortunately for Sharp and the club Sharp isn't a head coach (rubbish with the media, poor recruitment) but I still think he'd be a good coach or assistant for somebody

A lot of different accounts here
Sharpe arrived
Sharpe let Agar carry on
Kear picked the team, and then the team picked themselves








As much as it may pain some Agar did play a massive part in us reaching the G/final that year.

Doubt it but a couple of top signings would point us in the right direction.

In fact they dont have to even be top signings, if we had Brett Hodgson and Dobson in our side for next season we would be challenging IMO.

These two werent top signings just good ones in the correct positions.

I do believe Richard Swain had more influence in getting Hull to the GF than either Agar or Peter Sharp.

exactly, signing the big name isn't always the best option

Nobody said that the team picked themselves. The point you've missed is that Agar pretty much changed nothing after Kear left and yet we started winning. This was down to the change in the players attitude once Kear left.

Peter Sharp came in part way through that winning run, so Agar wasn't even acting coach for the whole of it nor our GF visit.


I'd be happy to consider any evidence you might have to back that up.

Not as simple as that though Kosh, Agar must have been doing something, even if it was giving the team more freedom. The fact was we started winning and playing decent rugby and whislt players attitudes will have contributed to it so will the little things that Agar did.

The players realised they had to start playng as they needed to impress the new gafar, they also knew Rich who they had a lot of time for.

You will find evidence on most threads (even I admit to questioning his ability whilst still sulking after a match)

According to Agar himself at the time, all he did was go back to the basics. Which is fine, and worked OK at the time because the players were highly self-motivated following the exit of Kear.

I'd also argue that the rugby we played wasn't hugely different to how we've played since TBH - just better executed. We won a lot of scrappy, low-scoring games in that run, sometimes by the skin of our teeth.

IMO it doesn't work. Both have ambitions of being head coaches and surely it will cause conflict both having their input into the team

Not for me!

I for one totally agree, our style has changed very little, the difference is we are losing games now by the skin of our teeth.

we had players who could change a game like Cooke and Swain then though, and even some of the others like Mcmenemy could kick and do something other than just one man plodding into the line

if we were drawing a tight game with 10mins to go, I know which team out of the 2006 and 2009 teams I'd put my money on.

I agree with most of that but Agar added something to the running of the side even if it was encouraging them to play and concentrating on basics, it helped us to start winning games. The PS came in and tightened things up defensively. The main thing is we had players of real quality who could change/win games and any coach needs the right calibre of player if he is going to be successful.

No

I don't think we're too far off a competitive team. For next year, I'd like to see:

1) Horne
2) Raynor
3) Yeaman/Briscoe
4) Whiting
5) Calderwood

6) New Stand Off
7) New Scrum Half



Dowes
9) Berrigan
10) Thackray
11) Tickle
12) Burnett/Yeaman
13) Washy

14) New Impact Prop
15) Lauaki
16) Manu
17) Houghton/Lee

I make that three signings. If those signings are of the right quality, we have the potential to do pretty well.

what about fitzgibbon?

we're not gonna waste a quota spot on a reserve surely?

Yep whereas now we're losing a lot of scrappy, low-scoring games by the skin of our teeth (IMO).