Horne isn't what I would class as an exciting player. Relatively safe maybe but exciting he aint

I don't really know much about roberts but richards is a cart horse and is probably the quickest of the others you've listed

Was only a couple of ankle taps off scoring some very exciting tries on Friday!

There you go then, Hall would probably have chalked up his 1st 2 tries of the season if he'd been playing.

And if we're guessing i'd say that Hall would have probably missed some of the 20 tackles G Horne put in meaning Wigan would have scored 2 or 3 tries over the top of him!

Wouldn't go that far. Calderwood was pretty starved of opportunities IMO, and the closest he got to scoring was trying to take on 3 Wigan players on the outside on the 3rd or 4th tackle. He had a good game, but not the kind of performance to make him undroppable IMO.

Celtic is as good an opportunity as any for Hall to get a run and see if he's improved his defence.

But what has G Horne done to deserve dropping?

Who says players have to do something to deserve dropping? If you have a potentially better option, should you not pick them? If Crocker's VISA came through today and he arrived tomorrow, should Burnett keep his place ahead of him for this weekend? Or how about when Tony's fit, does Byrne retain his place instead? Raynor to be left out for Briscoe?

Drastic comparisons perhaps, but all I'm trying to say is that if it's done for the good of the team I don't see the problem. It's unfortunate for players to miss out sometimes, but picking somebody continuously just because they haven't had a howler isn't the way to go IMO.

Disagree, Roberts is by far their fastest player. He is also probally in the top 5 speedsters in the league.

But who says Hall is the better option, thats not clear at the moment so Horne has to stay. The Crocker comparison is very clear. If Hall was an Oz international that too would be clear! Tony has also proven himself to be a class full back so thats pretty clear. Potential to be the better option also means he has the potential to be the worse option so why risk it when we dont need to?

Yes it is.

Hence the word 'potentially'. If Hall plays like he can and improves his defence, he has the ability to completely eclipse Horne. The only way to realise this is by playing, so giving him that opportunity when you can could be for the good of the team both short term and long term.



And in a single sentence I think you've nailed our biggest problem: fear is overriding our desire to improve. Do you think Leeds and Saints and the like would be scared of putting in a talented youngster against the might that is Celtic Crusaders?

Based on what? Youre subjective opinion i guess?

I agree he is a future star should he develop correctly. Im not anti-Hall by any means, just think short term he isnt the right answer. Ive said before, i'd have sent him out on loan for 3 months.



Not sure its fear, in business it would be called risk management!



You go with the option that will get results rather than one that may make you better results or may make you worse results until they can develop into a player than doesnt make worse results.

Hall offers much more in attack than Horne ever will. Crusaders have a weak defence. We should try and exploit it.

I'm pretty sure we'll go with the 'safe' option though. We always do.

Why is playing the person who is first choice in their position "safe", Horne did nothing wrong against Wigan did he?

I actually agree that loaning him out could be a good idea.



I would have thought risk management would be choosing to utilise/develop him when the risk is minimal (ie against teams who hold less of a threat). Not using him at all is just risk avoidance and a waste of his talents.

If his inclusion would mean the difference between winning and losing against the likes of Celtic/Salford/Castleford, I'd say we have big problems.

My question would be why Horne is first choice when he isn't as good a centre. But that's been done to death on here.

Oh - and I don't want a team full of players who've 'done nothing wrong'. I want a team full of players who've done things [iright[/i.

nO HE DIDNT DO NOTHING WRONG...WAS THROUGH A COUPLE OF TIMES BUT Wigans line spped was good and they got him...Hall may have got in....Celtics speed wont be anywhere near Wigans so should play Hall to exploit this weakness and have Houghton on bench

I like that Kosh, nice one.

If you need to take the risks to meet your targets then it would be an option to take the risk here. However, if your target is attainable in a more safe and risk averse way that should be the way to go, and thats whay Agar does.

Lets say we win 20-10 with G Horne playing, and we win 26-16 with Hall playing, but there is more chance with Hall in the team of tackles being missed and the 26-16 being reversed than when G Horne plays, why wouldnt you take the safer 2 points?

And whats wrong with Safe is Safe gets 2 points? Lets not run before we can walk i thinks.

If we win the first 5 games with that approach you can call me who you like!!

Boring B'stard?