There is basis, Washy has played 13 and played there very well, he has also played 6 very well and was our best players last season behind Berrigan. For a start Whiting has to be able to get through a season or two injury free and whilst he has only had limited chances at 6 and 13 he has never impressed there.

I like Whiting, don't think I don't but there is no basis to say he will perform well there. Yes he has a good brain but that does not mean he will play 13 well.

Like I said I would like to see him given a run there this season whilst Washy is injured so we can see what he can do.

If he is such a good 13 why has none of the Hull coaches ever given him a run there?

He should be booted out of the club WAY PAST his sell buy date

Agreed, but he is under contract for 2010.

He plays for sydney roosters in that position

I'm with Paul M on this, Washbrook is the better player for me and is a massive part of the jigsaw. He's a player who for me will be a real star, he's our 13 imo.

Whos was the buffoon who gave him a contract

Maybe .... but they don't have Lee Radford to play there, Fitzgibbon will have to stick to the 2nd row I'm afraid.

My only worry is we will play Radford, Tickle and Fitzgibbon in the backrow and Washy will be bench or not in the 17, which would be criminal imo. RA has to learn to choose between Tickle/Radford.

The one option is to have only one prop on the bench instead of two and play two backrowers (Washy/Manu) and utilise Fitz as the 4th prop during interchanges.

He's had some good games there, but not over an extended period. That still doesn't mean he's 'far better' than Whiting.



I disagree with part of this. He did as good a job as could be expected under the circumstances, and performed bravely. To say he played 6 'very well' is stretching the point a little. It would be more accurate to say he played 6 'very well for a forward'.



He hasn't. Stupid Whiting getting a broken arm and a broken leg in the same year. Will he ever learn? Doesn't make him a bad player though.



He's had the odd game there at best. When he's had a few games in either position, then we'll see.



The fact that he's had a few injuries and limited opportunities doesn't mean he won't play 13 well, either.



Because he's either been injured or covering in the centre perhaps?

As I said earlier, Aussie sides tend to play three second rowers rather than a traditional ball-handling loose. If we want to go down that route, fine, play Fitz there. If not, Whiting or Washbrook has to be 13.

That's better.

I'm not getting deeper and deeper into this, I don't care whether you agree or not and am not interested in trying to convince you. I never accused Whiting over his injuries so yu can cut that bollox about broken legs etc.

Whiting has been with the club a number of years and none of the coaches have ever seen fit to give him an extended run in the side at 6 or 13. Personally I would like to see him givena shot at 13 and hope he would do well there and provided the money is right I would rather see him kept on instead of Thorman as he could cover 6 and other positions whereas Thorman can't.

Washbrook can only be judged on his performances and imo he has been excellent for us, more so at 13 than 6 but even at 6 in a side with no direction he still performed very well and certainly better than most others during that season.

Would probably get my vote if we bring someone with decent impact in. If we could afford to I'd like Thackray to stay on so that we have the opportunity of choosing between him and King at the end of next year.

On the Whiting debate, I'd love him to stay. My only concerns are obviously his injuries, and then the fact that he seems to have been earmarked for the backrow for the past 2-3 seasons but still hasn't really bulked up enough IMO. If he's struggling to do it, maybe his frame just isn't cut out to enable him to play regularly and effectively in the forwards.

Good, cos you won't. And likewise, by the way.



You mentioned it in a discussion about why Washbrook is a 'far better' player. Why mention it if it wasn't relevant?



And how much of that time has he been fit, but not playing centre? Virtually none. Again, a flawed argument.



Even without having a run at 6 or 13, Whiting should be kept on ahead of Thorman. Every single OOC player should be kept on ahead of Thorman.



So has Whiting, FFS. Maybe not at 13, but, as I've already pointed out, he's not had the chance through injury and playing centre.



I'm not detracting from what Washbrook had to do in difficult circumstances, but I'd hate to be in the position where he ever has to play six for an extended period again. He looked like a forward playing six - very well for a forward, but still a forward nonetheless.

I'd suggest that even if he isn't going to be first choice LF, we need quality cover in a number of positions and Whiting provides this.

If a halfback gets injured, do you want Whiting coming in, or Thorman?

If a LF gets injured, Whiting or Radford?

If a centre gets injured, Whiting or G Horne?

Whiting . His "utility" value alone should secure him a new deal.

I mentioned his injuries the same way I would with Motu Tony, he has been out for large periods. You can FFS all you want but you have just posted all the same stuff again and nothing new. Washbrook is producing in the 13 role, when Whiting does so we can have the discussion, if he ever gets to play there that is.

I hope he stays but I am not sure he will. Should we sign a centre then I see him struggling to get into the 17 man squad.

Thats a no brainer for starters....Tickle offers a damn sight more than what Radford ever will do.

The back row should be.

Tickle
Fitzy
Whiting/Washy

Manu off the bench with another impact prop

Totally agree with Paul, Washy has to be our number 1 loose forward and yes he is far better than Whiting there, although I would give Whiting another year because he can cover centre,stand off and loose man, I must admit would rather see Whiting at 13 than Radders.

Not really wanting to get into the whole Whiting vs Washbrook debate, but how can you say that? Whiting has had maybe two games at 13 in his entire career.

No. You mentioned it in a discussion about why you think Washbrook is a 'far better' player.



Nope. I answered each of your points. You have yet to give a satisfactory response to any of mine. Your ridiculous assertion that Washbrook is 'far better' than Whiting has been shown up for what it is and you have no response.



Whether he produces in the 13 role or not is largely irrelevant. I think he will, you think otherwise. He has produced at centre though and has played equally as well in that position as Washy has at 13. Washy is simply not 'far better'.



Even if we sign a centre, he provides quality cover and competition for places. On this season's form, I'd pick him at centre before Yeaman.

I would rather we offer Motu a 1 year deal for next season and attempt to sign Dean Collis from Wests who is a point scoring machine at centre and is vastly under-rated.

For the record, neither am I. Both are quality players and both add different things to the side - at 13 or elsewhere. I do take exception when someone makes the utterly potical assertion that one is 'far better' than the other, though.

Squads need utility players and we have a top one in Whiting.......he can cover centre,S/O,2nd row and L/F and when he plays you know you are getting a superb footballer on the pitch....look how Calderwood is playing now...Whiting will actually pass and they work well together.....IMO,whiting would make a superb 13.

I have answered your points but you just keep asking the same questions. You just don't like the answers but in your mind if that counts as being shown up then whatever.

The main reason to keep Whiting is for his utility value. He has never made a position his own althoughthis is also down to his injuries which have affected him staking a claim at times.

As for my statement for Washbrook being far better, it's a fact as until Whiting plays there we can't comment on how good he is.

Like I have said several times I want to see Whiting play there then I can judge him better but RA like many other coaches don't seem to want to pick him there for some reason. Maybe the reason is he can handle it from a creative side but would struggle physically in the role?

When I mentioned injuries I stated that Whiting needed to be injury free for a while in order for him to make a position his own, that would seem blatantly obvious to anyone quite frankly.