Fitz should have been rested before the CC kicked in , Then we get Dowes replaces Radford ,Then vice versa.

Fair shout on Fitz. Problem is him and Houghton do about 100 tackles a game between them.

If we get beat on Sunday then I feel we wont see any of our youngsters get a sniff .

I agree that Agar should play his strongest 17 because first and foremost we need to be winning games but last week when Fitz played a cameo role off the bench after his Exiles appearance seemed like the ideal time to play one of the youngsters.

Correct , But it's been said this season that the rest of the squad have to do their share ,The hard work shouldn't be left to those two players .

Going back to the 3 backrowers who are not getting first team opportunities Kent, Cunningham and Green. Does this mean both Washy and Burnett may have a future with Hull next year?

But these are the some of the same fans who complain about us not putting 50 on a club for x amount of games.

I must admit having overseas players as back up or even signing one which would keep a player getting good reviews in the u20's further down the pecking order is a little confusing but that might be the difference between one or two places in the league.

To a extent I agree, in the match tread I said we should have left them all out, but imagine if we'd have put in a Wakefield performance and hadn't have had Fitz on the bench to come on and stead the ship?

I want to see agar sacked. 8th at best is shocking for a side spending the full cap. At least 2 sides above us are spending less on players

It's anyones guess, the fact that two of those players are out at other clubs might suggest Agar wants them to play at a higher level to gain experience for next season.

Burnett is 1 , Who's the other ?

Green at Doncaster.

I forgot about Adlous, he's just joined York for a month.

Some of the others might have joined him but 3 are injured.

In spite of horrendous injuries in 2008 and 2009 agar still failed to introduce youngsters. We brought through more leeds youngsters than we did our own

Eh?

Age Feb 2008 and Appearances 2008 & 2009:

Hall Age 19 - Appearances 36
Houghton Age 19 - Appearances 48
Burnett Age 19 - Appearances 27
Lee Age 19 - Appearances 43
Briscoe Age 17 - Appearances 26

So 180 first team appearances in those 2 years by players in their teens at the start of 2008.

Disnt Hall and Lee start before that season as well.......Also,2 have left the club,1 loaned out and others are 1st team regulars....so out of the 5 mentioned..2 are regulars...not a bad ratio eh.

They did, but the point made and to which I was replying was that in 2008 and 2009 despite injuries we didn't give young players an opportunity. These 5 were all teenagers at the start of the time period in question and played an average of 18 games a season each. So, in summary, in 2008 and 2009, plenty of opportunity was given to young players. The fact that Lee, for example, left, is irrelevant. He got lots of gametime and opportunity under Agar. Some might argue too much.

We only in effect,gave 3 their chance as Lee and Hall was playing in 2007 as well.Even last season,Agar was loathe to give Nicklas his chance,instead using Washbrook as a half....Agar is scared to use the kids....even against Oldham,he only used only 2 in Kent and Aldous.. and could have used more last week.We are more intrested in bringing in Loan players than promoting within.

I don't disagree that Agar is loathe to give young players their chance last year and this at all. But effectively we had 5 players in their late teens playing most games in 2008 and 2009. I don't think Agar can reasonably be criticised for failing to give young players a chance in 2008 and 2009 when these players got 180 games between them. Just my opinion.

That was 2008/9.......this is now....we are loathe to promote from within and was last season as well.He can be criticised for not coaching them properly....Houghton and Lee could have been a good hooking option for us for future and Hall should have stayed as he is a damn sight better than Sharp and Lynn.

I know. I was replying to the point that we didn't give young players gametime in 2008/9 despite loads of injuries.

Don't disagree too much. But when you have pretty much your full first choice side available (apart from Long), you play them, don't you? Why have big wedges of the cap sat in the stands. I take the point someone made that we should be resting Fitz more, but when the team is hardly on fire, and all our forwards are available, I can understand Agar selecting Radford over an academy prop, for example. The bigger issue for me is not getting the most out of what we have available tbh.

Yep. Didn't mind Lee.

He can barely get in Rovers team and they're 11th.

But why play a virtual 1st team v Oldham..that one amazed me.

Another masterful career move to go alongside Cooks.

That was mental. But in the context of not having won a CC game for nearly 3 years, so safety first. Just too extreme.

How many of those debuted in 08/09? How many loan players did we bring in?

Probably none. But the point is this. You said we didn't risk playing young players in 2008/9 despite injury crises in both years. I am saying that we had 5 teenagers playing an average of 18 games each a season over that time. In that context, I can understand Agar bringing in, say, Broughton, whom you rate highly and would have liked us to sign permanently, rather than playing Lyne at 16 when we already had a shedload of young players in the team week in week out.

I don't disagree at all that Agar has not given enough game time to fringe players this year. But I don't criticise him for failing to give young players gametime in 2008/9. 180 games is a lot IMO.