No. My argument is that we cannot say for a fact that Washy is better - not that he cannot be better. You should read things more closely.



This bit doesn't make sense. Are you illiterate?

Radford, for me, offers nothing but limited hard work and it just baffles me why he will be still here next season. However, although Tickle offers more in attack and obviously his kicking, it wouldn't bother me too much if he were to leave either.

Radford v Tickle - Stats www.superleague.co.uk/statistics ... eason=2009

Radford v Tickle - Stats www.superleague.co.uk/statistics ... eason=2009

Quote ="PAUL M"Radford v Tickle - Stats www.superleague.co.uk/statistics ... eason=2009'" Tickle offers far more in attack with offloads and tackle busts. Radford works hard in defence but that about it, I would expect this to Fitzgibbons job next season. Add his kicking in, Tickle everytime for me.

Quote ="PAUL M"Radford v Tickle - Stats www.superleague.co.uk/statistics ... eason=2009'" Tickle offers far more in attack with offloads and tackle busts. Radford works hard in defence but that about it, I would expect this to Fitzgibbons job next season. Add his kicking in, Tickle everytime for me.

Quote ="PAUL M"Radford v Tickle - Stats www.superleague.co.uk/statistics ... eason=2009'" 51 missed tackles from Tickle! That's bloody awful for a 2nd rower, get rid of both of them!

Quote ="PAUL M"Radford v Tickle - Stats www.superleague.co.uk/statistics ... eason=2009'" 51 missed tackles from Tickle! That's bloody awful for a 2nd rower, get rid of both of them!

This is not a blanket defence, because it is definitely an area he needs to improve, but I'd be interested to see stats that were broken down for how many of Tickle's missed tackles are late in the game to put it into context. As I say, not defending him entirely because he definitely misses too many tackles (largely because of his penchant for going in up high instead around the midriff), but the fatigue aspect of playing 80 mins regularly could also be a factor in that stat. Surely it's not purely coincidental that both he and Manu are in the top 20 for missed tackles in SL? As are Ben Galea and Steve Menzies, 2 more backrowers who get through a hell of a lot of game time.

A much more mesningful stat would be number of missed tackles per minute played.

And 12 pens with the club only conceding 65 he needs some rest time if they are all late in the game. Think this is where our interchanges are needed.

lf loose forward

Buf if he's really good like u think he is, then agar would put him at lf erm just for u LOOSE FORWARD but he doesnt have the physical presence to be a LOOSE FORWARD.
He aint fit to tie washbrooks laces for the loose forward position I think there is only you who thinks he can.

If agar put Whiting at loose forward then u could put berro at centre.
who owns whiting in that position and then houghton and tommy at hooker.

Or are you going to tell me that Whiting is a better centre then berro?

Again, depends. For example, Tickle plays full 80 minutes, misses 1 tackle in the first half, 3 in the 2nd, 2 of which in the last 10 minutes when he's out on his feet. Radford plays first 25 of both halves, misses 1 in 2nd spell. Tickle still looks much worse in the stats. Fairly so?

(Note that this is approximately how many tackles they are missing per game too)

Maybe 1st half tackles missed and 2nd half tackles missed? Maybe that is too in depth for the SL website, I am sure the clubs have that kind of info though.

Yeah, I bet they do. I just thought it was something for people to consider when looking at the stats to try and be a little fairer about things.

Those stats are very misleading and when the get wheeled out on here to try and win an argument I feel it's always a bit pointless. They are an indication but little else.

Kin ell stats stats stats,this thread has gone to the dogs back on track I heard we signing scott prince this morning!

Statistically no chance!!

Totally agree.

Exactly. Tickle needs spelling! Simple as. Perhaps Agar is unlucky with the fact that Burnett was out, then when he came back Manu was out. That can be excused. But playing Radford at loose forward can't. If we played Whiting there Radford can stay in the second row and allow them to be spelled.

We all know Tickle needs spelling but Agar doesnt see it. Same as when he played Manu for 80 mins.

Radford isnt playing loose forward, he is playing as a 3rd prop. We dont play with a loose forward which again fits to our 5 drives and a kick tactics and doesnt help our creativity. Sadly its another failing of Agar.

No you misunderstand me. What i meant was if he were playing in the second row, then Tickle wouldn't have to play 80 minutes.

Ah, i agree. Radford and Tickle in the 2nd row with Burnett spelling them. Play a creative loose forward too. If Manu was fit i'd have Manu and Burnett coming off the bench as well as 2 props to play each forward for 40 mins per game.

Yeah exactly, i was just giving Agar a little bit of sympathy as Burnett was out, and as soon as he came back Manu was. But still that's no excuse

I'd maybe at least play Radford for 55 mins and Tickle for 55 mins giving Burnett 50 mins. At least that way Tickle wouldnt looks so knackered.

Whiting does have a great rugby brain and reads the game very well, however what is his position in the team other than a utility player. He is competent at centre but doesn't have the pace that great centres have.

He isn't an out and out 1/2 back for me and doesn't have the bulk to be effective in the back row. He's like a loose forward from 20 years ago maybe but most teams play with a glorified 2nd rower there now which is a role better suited to Washbrook.

If he bulked up a little he could be an effective back rower similar in style to Chris Chester. he runs good lines and has an eye for an opening. I don't think we should be paying top $ though for a fringe player.

With regards to Washy, I'm not sure what other people see when he's in his most effective position of 13, however for me he has a tremendous workrate, puts in a massive defensive stint each and every game and creates more opportunities than our 1/2 backs have in recent years. He'd be very sought after if he left us IMO, Whiting less so.

Having said that, I hope Whiting does stay, however on the terms that reflect his position in the squad

I think that's how I'd go, to open up the 4th bench spot as well. We've criticised our rotation policy on here for being too mapped out and rigidly stuck to in the past, and I think having 4 out and out forwards on the bench would do exactly that. A hooker/utility would open it up more and give us a bit of flexibilty to adapt our tactics if/when the game needs it.