Should be starting. Fitz and Manu/Laukai in the 2nd row.

prop for me. with radford or tickle from the bench.

Its an option definately. But i'm starting to think that i'd use Moa, O'Meley, Cusack and Dowes as the props and rotate Lauaki and Manu for a 2nd row spot, with Fitz playing 80 in the other 2nd row spot.

its nice to have options! what i dont want to see, if we can help it, is cusack, dowes and radford on the pitch at the same time, i'd cry!

We can have all the options we want with regards players positions, the simple fact is we have Richard Agar , a man who over the last season and a half has proved that he is not SL/NL coach material, in fact I'd say he'd be lucky to get a job as heach coach of an under 8's rl team, he is that poor. and before people jump down my throat for having a go, why don't you all make a list of the things he done right as a coach in the last season and a half, and all the things he's got wrong, and I'll bet you you'll struggle to the positives to outweigh the negatives. But don't worry, it's the sheep mentality, lead by Wolfie, saying everything will be alright on the night.

He's had long spells out injured under the last 4 coaches, and, when he's been fit, he's been used elsewhere (eg centre) because of his versatility. So, it doesn't tell us a great deal, no.



Now, expressing doubt that his workrate [imay[/i not be high enough to play in the pack is different from saying "his workrate isn't high enough to play in the pack". That's what I have a problem with.

As regards the 'options' we have there, I see the only two options as Washy and Whiting. If Washbrook is first choice and he gets injured, Whiting should be next in line, IMO.

Not agreeing or disagreeing with your point of view about Agar. But there seems to be far more people who would like to see the back of him on here than those that don't. Doesn't that make you the little woolly creature that goes BAA ?

Have you not been reading this board for the last several months or something? The vast majority don't feel that Agar is up to the job, so quite where you get the whole 'sheep' thing from is beyond me.

No he wont.

thank god for that, only 2 years after everyone else realised Radford at 13 doesn't work

Well it tells me that despite numerous chances none of the coaches have seen fit to lay him at 13. Even when we have performed poorly and had no pivots Whiting has still not got his shot, to me that says the coaches see something in training that makes them not want to play him there.

Semantics, you know what people are referring to about workrate, all of a sudden he would have to be making far more tackles and take far more hitups. Also he would be required to kick more often aswell as play a creative role. Not everyone with a brain and good hands are cut out for that level of work week in/out.

When Whiting was signed, he was signed from Featherstone as a stand Off. Whilst he's been at the club, who has been the starting 13's for each of the coaches , excluding Agar's love of Radders who has no creative ability whatsoever.

Radders and Tickle will both struggle to make the 17 imo. Ive no issue with Dowes and Cusack on the field to start off with, ive said it before, we've played some of our better rugby over the last couple of seasons when theyve put down the platform.

Although I see your point, with our pack I think we have to be agressive from the off with at least one of O'meley, Lauaki or even Moa starting in the front row. It should alternate every week also so we don't become predictable.
We would be easy to defend against with moa, lauaki, Manu and o'meley on at the same time as teams would just look to see them off and tire them out. A constant flow of impact must be better than it coming in one big wave?

Modern rugby shows that most games are tight for the first half of each half and then benches win games. I'd be really pleased if we played the tight pack for the first 20 and then brought on O'Meley, Moa, Lauaki/Mau, Houghton. Not many teams could cope with that kind of impact. The starting pack with Cusack, Dowes, Fitz, Manu/Laukai, Berro isnt too shabby. Think Cusack actually brings more impact to the side than he's given credit for too.

I personally would like to see us batter sides in the first 20 and set the tone.
I agree about cusack, he has the ability to land on his hands and knees and get a quick PTB. But wouldn't this be more effective coming on with Houghton who is very good at scooting from dummy half?

Numerous chances? I can't think of a single time when Whiting has been fit that he's not been needed to cover elsewhere because of injuries.

What this discussion is showing us is that we have some great options. If they all stay fit (and its a big iff) then i think we may just do well.

Might have to pop along to the bookies today and have a little flutter on us. (unless i wait til Rovers complete their massive signings which in turn may shorten their odds and lengthen ours)

Really



Last season then when Horne was out of form, Thorman got dropped and there was no Washy either. Agar had to play about with the side numerous times and switched all sorts of player and positions around, yet Whiting onoly played centre or fullback. He never featured in the halves or at 13. There were also chances the prvious year. We have needed cover in lots of areas of the last two years and especially from a creative point of view but Whiting has still not been given his chance.

I am not saying it's right that he hasn't been given the chance but the coaches see him day in/out and must see something that stops them picking him there.

When did he join? he has definately served under Kear, Sharp and Agar, maybe MCrae too. Some of those coaches have had success and none of them deemed Whiting to be a 13. I don't know why but I would take their opinions over fans on a message board.

Because Whiting is our best option when we're struggling at Centre or Fullback. He can't play everywhere. How hard is that to understand?

How hard is it to understand that if he was this great 13 that at least one coach would have seen fit to play him there?

They obviously rate him as a better centre and Washy the better 13.

Ok, let me spell it out for you:

At the times you are talking about last season, we had more than one player who could fill in at 13. We didn't have more than one who could fill in at centre or fullback (and not be hopelessly exposed).

Did you think Agar would move Radford to fullback to play Whiting at 13? He was the best option elsewhere, so he didn't get to play 13. It's been the same throughout his Hull career. He's so versatile that he spends his whole time fighting fires instead of cementing a regular place.