It's quite ironic that the top teams have a quality ball playing individual at loose man: St's = Wilkin, Rhino's = Sinfield, Wigan = O'Loughlin. Washbrook has a place in modern day Rugby League, I just don't think it's at Hull Fc.

Sadly youve got the nail on the head, at least while Agar is in charge.

Did you know (as im in a stats mood today) Richard Horne has our top assists with 6 and O'Loughlin has 12 assists at Wigan. I know that assists are how you want to interpret it but it's pretty damning. Imagine if we had Washy at 13 to pick up just 6 assists rather than a prop who picks up none. We'd look a lot more dynamic imo.

Maybe O'Loughlin is just very good..?

No maybe about it, he is very good. But thats why ive said if Washy played 13 and got 6 assists and not 12 like O'Loughlin it would still make us a better team.

I honestly think this is where we are suffering; our defence always seems to be stretched, we always seem to be predictable. For me this is due to having a 'traditional' floating loose man.

Washy has the defensive workrate and stength to play 80 mins at 13 too. Maybe Agar should think about playing him there and using Fitz for 60 mins in the 2nd row.

*Edit*

I knew what you meant.

Cheers Dave

It's the Wollemi Chardonnay...Damn you Sainsbury's

Sinfield's a ball player, but I wouldn't say the other two are. They can pass and kick, very well, but they are still grafters (as is Sinfield as well, just to a lesser extent with the ball) and that is their main role in the team. They use the ball to add in something a bit different to the usual options and I think that's what Washbrook offers from 13. He'll tackle for 80 minutes and can take 15 hit-ups a game, but he has good hands when the option is there. Radford doesn't and Fitzgibbon, whilst being better, doesn't really either. That wouldn't be a problem if our halves and fullback were in every match and on form, but, Tansey aside, they haven't been, which means we are lacking due to not having an extra option occasionally.

Well put. So with our lack of creativity and injuries in the halves would it not make more sense for Agar to alter his plans and play a ball playing 13 to help us? I wouldnt mind Turner and Horne in the halves if Washy played 13. (i see Turner and Horne both as runners)

It would make sense. I'm not sure where that would leave the forward rotation, but it would probably mean only one of Lauaki and Moa being in the same squad as I'd guess they'd both have the same role if Fitzgibbon went to second row, sharing it with Manu and Tickle. One of Radford, Dowes and Cusack would also miss out, but all three have looked off the pace in the last couple of games so rotating them wouldn't be a problem.

to cut a LONG story short.....i think he's been average of late...thats when he has actually played.

Maybe just shift Fitz up to prop then like he's played for Oz?

Fitz
Houghton
O'Meley
Tickle
Manu
Washy

Bench:
Radford
Moa
Lauaki
McShane

Would imagine that Tickle would move up a row before Fitzgibbon moved to prop.

At 13 he plays as a prop anyway. (a bloody good one though) and numerous times for club and country in Oz he has been named in the front row and played prop.

Agar has been quoted as saying he doesnt really have 2nd rows or props etc. He has forward that play down the middle channel like his 3 props and then he has 2 2nd rows that play down the wider channels. My view would be that 2 props should suffice for the middle channel and we can have an extra ball player at 13.

Possibly, it's another option to think about.

Agar wont though.

Has he ever worked with a top class coach to learn the job? Certainly hasn't at Hull under kear and sharp

I maybe wrong but I thought he worked with Nobby at International level. I personally consider Nobby a top class coach.

I used these 'type' of players as an example for championing the "traditional" loose forward; they're not bulked up 3rd prop players, they're mobile and with a greater all round ability than your average forward. The players I picked have enough skills to play in the halves if need be (and regularly do) I'd put Washbrook in there with them.

Therein lies the problem for me. At times too predictable and easy to defend against.

That is what you get signing a player of that age, but its games like todays that you need him to step up and perform, and in the past he has done it on the big stage

Thats why the team needs him today, hes a big game player, i wouldnt be bothered if it were a league game. If hes out, so be it, weve played plenty of game time without him this year and even when hes played hes only looked good at saints and also defensively at kr.