Well when you talk to pots you tend to stoop to their level.

If whiting was that good at loose forward then he would be playing there now end of ...no ifs or buts about it but when agar decides to put a prop/2nd rower there INSTEAD of whiting then it doesnt say much of confidence agar has for him playing in that pos....personally I would give whiting a try in the halves as that is where he used to play if memory serves me right.

good utility player and would be worth a contract if he isnt getting paid loads but cannot see him being a regular loose forward.

Plus he has been injured alot of late and that always has to be a concern.
especially broken legs.


But as James Rule will tell you this game is all about opinions

I am going to use that word at some point this week!

I imagine you'll get plenty of opportunities on Friday.

I may even use it at the match.

At the stewards

Whiting, hence why I said: 'On the Whiting debate, I'd love him to stay.'



I'm just not convinced he'd be a better option than Washbrook at LF due to the physical requirements that go with it nowadays. And I'm not too fussed which would be first choice cover for halfback, they're both about the same there IMO.

You haven't. You haven't said one thing to back up your stupid statement that Washy is a 'far better' player than Whiting.



That and the fact that he gets used elsewhere because of his utility value.



Two things. Until Whiting plays there it is not a fact, it's an assumption. It can't possibly be a fact until we've seen Whiting there. |Even then, you could maybe argue that Washy is more suited to the role because of his greater strength/power, or that Whiting is because of his superior handling/reading of the game. To say categorically that one is far better isn't possible.

Secondly you said a far better player. Not a far better loose forward, but a far better player. That is just nonsense.



Ok, I've asked you this several times, and you haven't answered yet. You keep saying you've answered my points, but this clearly isn't the case. I'll try again:

How long since Whiting has been here has he been fit and not covering another position in order to have the opportunity to be picked at LF?



It would. It wouldn't be a reason why one is a better player though.

No I don't.

That's how I see it, and I'd prefer them to act now and make sure we have a good fullback for next year instead of risking it and missing out on who might be available. Obviously that's not to say sign anyone for the sake of it, only move if a decent player is obtainable. Whilst maybe not ideal, we do have other options for centre next year in Briscoe and Hall (and maybe/hopefully Whiting), whereas outside of Tony we don't really have anything at FB(Horne at stand-off every time for me). In my view it would be better to take a punt on the kids developing and have fullback sorted than to have no fullback, a good centre, and stunt the development of 2 of our best prospects into the bargain.

And who would play centre given that Agar doesn't seem to rate Hall?

Never said it worried him but it worries me ....the amount of athletes who break there legs and when they comeback there never the same,luckily for whiting he didnt have pace in the first place so that wont be one negative lol

I Dont rate hall either , I think whiting is doing a decent job there but he is no matt gidley is he and if we get a quality centre like that then calderwood would have a field day !!!

Two things. Until Whiting plays there it is not a fact, it's an assumption. It can't possibly be a fact until we've seen Whiting there. |Even then, you could maybe argue that Washy is more suited to the role because of his greater strength/power, or that Whiting is because of his superior handling/reading of the game. To say categorically that one is far better isn't possible.

I THINK Calderwood is a better prop then Thackery is and dont say he isnt as until he plays there you cannot say that Thackery is better

The point I was making was, you said if Whiting was good enough for LF he'd be playing there. But if he was, that'd leave a bit of a void in the centre, wouldn't it?

Taking an argument to ridiculous extremes does you no favours.

Whilst we are talking about potical comments. How can Whiting be at least as good in your words when you have already admitted he has not played there for us to judge him, sounds like one of those stupid comments you keep referring too.

When I said Washbrook was a far better player I meant as a 13, maybe you took it as an alround player but I meant it as a 13.

Yes Whiting has been moved around due to his utlity value, but if he was THAT good at 13 he would not be moved so much and would be played in his rightful position. When he cam back from injury this season he could have played 13 as I think Washy was out but he was immediately brought in at centre even though at the time we have Horne/Yeaman playing there. Shortly afterwards Horne got moved to the wing and then got injured, either way Whiting never got a look in at 13.

Tbh like I have said I want Whiting to stay and I want Washbrook at be our 13, my view is that none of them will get the job and it will go to Radford/Fitz.

Either way I am bored of the argument and I sure others are too, if you to continue with it I will gladly do it via pm, for now I will let this thread stay on topic and concentrate on discussing rumours.

Prospect. Did you miss that word? Prospect. He's at least as good a prospect at 13.



Then perhaps you ought to have said that at the time. Or in any of the subsequent posts you made after the initial one.




You could argue the same for Washy last season, but you'd be wrong. However good players are in certain positions, they sometimes have to move where the side needs them more. Horne is the best SO at the club, but we needed him at FB, so that's where he played.



As I remember, Horne wasn't playing that well at centre. Players - particularly those who can play a number of positions - go where they are needed most, as I demonstrated above.



I hope not. I'd be equally happy to see Whiting or Washy there to be honest. But we need someone with a creative brain.



The argument became largely redundant when you clarified that you meant 'loose forward' rather than 'player'. I still think you're wrong to say Washy is 'far' better (although I accept your reasons for saying he's better suited to the role), but I'm not half as incredulous as when I thought you were saying he was a far better player.

[modabee mode Is this a rumours thread or an argument thread[/modabee mode

Not really your argument is that washbrook cannot be better then whiting because whiting hasnt played there !!! What is very silly since he played in the halfs and not lf.

but anyway back to rumours

Im going to be watching how kite gets on in the origin and Crocker SIGH SOB SOB

i wonder if there is anybody playing in SOO that will be donning the black and white next season

Think I'm one of the few who would disagree there. I think Tickle is seriously over-rated due to his first year and doesnt offer much at all. While Radford isnt a fantastic player, I think he runs better, is a better defender, and has more of a presence on the field. We missed him against Wire imo. I think Tickle conceeds more penalties too