I have no axe to grind with him at all, did you not read my post? He seems to be excused from playing poorly as the players around him are crap. Yet Agar does not get afforded the same view? If the team are crap what can Agar do, surely no more than Berro?

Totally agree, I would also add R.Horne to that list, i think people become biased in their opinions because they have both produced world class performances in the past it is easy to blame the team around them, they have both been poor this season.People are slating Thorman and he has deserved it on occasions, however the last couple of games Thorman has given 100% effort which is more than can be said of both Berrigan & R. Horne

You obviously dont want to see the work he puts in in defence, everybody wants to alter the stats to their arguement.
So who would be doing the graft, Thackray/King/Moa/............yeah right

In the Wakey game Radford was doing way too much tackling very early on that told on him for the rest of the game and why he had to come off.
If the work was shared out a bit more.....

I've always maintained we have enough quality to be at least a top 6 side, the problems stem from clueless management/tactics.



I haven't (I assume you meant me)

No, I meant in general.

Which parts do you disagree with?



I think it's a good reason, as you'll soon see...



[iThat[/i is why I think they're worthless: they throw up ridiculous 'results' such as Radford being as good as any back-rower in the league. It's patently obvious that he isn't. A long way from it in fact. I've pointed out his faults, but they are things that aren't measurable by a number. You can't assign a value to the quality of work a player puts in in the tackle, on both sides of the ball. And yet that's a huge part of the game, especially for a workhorse in the pack. Those areas are what separates players like Cusack from players like Radford, but they don't show up in the statistics, so we see comparisons which produce daft results. (And that's without going into the ambiguity/indefinability of some of the things that do have an arbitrary number assigned to them by anonymous compilers with an understanding of the game that no-one can measure/know.)



So why does he keep playing that role then? Even if it's a directive from Agar (or Sharp, previously, one of the few things I disagreed with him doing/not fixing), why doesn't Radford, as captain, say that he shouldn't be playing that way? He must know how ineffective it is, although maybe he doesn't and maybe that's the problem.



He's playing as he's always played: as a stock forward down the middle. It doesn't matter what shirt number he's got, he's always played the same sort of role. And I've said, many times, what I think of the statistics, so I won't bother again now.



I'm not bothered about him not breaking tackles. I am bothered that we've got a back-row that's so limited when it comes to tackle breaking (without Manu and Washbrook, at least), but that's not the role Radford is meant to be playing, so he can't be faulted on that. It's just not what he is as a player. I do have a problem with him only playing 40-50 minutes and still not providing anything more energetic than a trundle into the tackler, a turn of his back and a little sit-down for a few seconds whilst the defence resets. And I do have a problem with him getting caught flat-footed and not dominating tackles. Someone in his role and at his size should be doing that almost every tackle he has to make.

As for the hole he leaves, Lee fills that more than adequately when he comes on. He doesn't get through as much work, but it is a much higher quality of work, both with and without the ball. He dominates tackles, works on the ground fairly well and is strong carrying the ball. He also provides a much better option as an extra handler.

Not that that matters really, as Washbrook should be playing 13 anyway when fit.



'Gifted' is one way of putting it, I suppose.

I think Berrigan has always been selected in representative sides because of his versatility rather than his specialization. He doesn't have the best distribution out of the hookers in SL, nor does he have the best ability to 'scoot'. He would be very good in a side full of talent but he's not a pivot to lead a team around.

Agar shouldn't be afforded the same excuses as Berrigan because despite having a poor squad to work with, he's still made tactically inept decisions time and time again. His substitution policy has been dire and the team seem to have no idea at all. Loads of coaches in SL have managed to grind out wins with very average squads by employing astute tactics and game plans. Tony Rae did it all the time with London, and not many people rate him as a good coach.

The squad is nowhere near as poor as their performances under Agar would suggest. We have quality throughout the team, they seem to be missing a game plan or any hint of motivation.

I disagree. Over the last 5 years, all of our true class has gone and been replaced by inferior players. I think with the squad we have now we are a coaches graveyard. Agar is poor but I'm sure that if someone replaces him, the results will not be much different unless a massive clear out ensues.

How close to full potential do you think our squad is playing at?

Nowhere near, however we do have some dross in the side, particularly in the forwards. the only ones I would not want to see leave are washy, manu, houghton and berrigan. The rest can be shown the door for me

I agree, I'd also like to see Burnett stay as he is coming on pretty well. That proves how crap our front row really is imo barring Maloney who I would keep too.

Forgot about Burnett. Been our best forward in the last 2 games IMO but suffering from our inept coach playing him for 80 minutes each week

houghton's ability to scoot should be tested from the start as he may be able to give us them extra yards at the start of a game and also in and around their tryline,whilst moving berro to scrum half

I would not keep him he has done nothing not worth the money he is on he looks very average compared to a player like Chad Randall

Disagree.

The players around him are making Berro look very average. You don't become a bad player all of a sudden. I actually feel sorry for Berrigan, playing with this bunch of average players.
There just simply not giving Berrigan anything to work with at all.

Disagree, he'd be class in a good sode

It is not all of a sudden he did not impress last year either, I agree in Aus he was class, however his performance suggest to me he is here for the paypacket.
The players around him like R.Horne (international), Yeamo (international),Raynor(international) Motu (international) Sing (international) etc
He is slow to play the ball, his kicking is dubious, I personally believe the best aspect of his game is defence, however he hardly manages a full game, I believe Houghton speeds up the game when he comes on, plus he offers more from the scoot.

I agree to a point but it is Berrigan who should be leading the side together with our other internationals. He has a responsibility as a senior player to do this, and kicking out on the full and lazily knocking on inside the first 10 minutes is not a good example to be setting whoever you are or wherever you might have played before.

So can Agar be excused then if he is working with average players?

He didn't impress you although he was by far our best player last season, and had the personal awards to show for it?

Just shows how poor we where last season as well...
Maybe he was awarded for his versatility in positions he played to accomodate Dykes.
Surprisingly one ot the best players for me last season especially towards the end was Graham Horne speaks volumes

Don't be silly. He got the awards because he was our best player by far.

There is no way you can blame Berrigan for that knock on IMO it was a crazy offload from Thacks whilst he was getting swung around.