He got slated for picking him ahead of Hall at Salford. He's being criticised now for picking him in the squad (meaning that Lyne could potentially have played at some point, despite apparently being deemed incapable) and not using him when doing so weakened the side elsewhere and left us a player short in the most difficult game of the year to cope, fitness-wise.

At times, Lynne looked out of his depth against Salford. Imagine how much more difficult it would have been for him against Wire. Just because he's a winger in the U20s, doesn't mean he's better suited to playing on the wing against a dangerous Warrington outfit than Hall or Whiting. It would have been ridiculous to throw a young player to the dogs when, by your own admission, it wouldn't have affected the result.



Exactly. I think some people just refuse to give Agar any credit - no matter what he does.

We did the best we could against a nearly full strength warrington side,its just a pity luck was not on our side or we may have sneaked it,I think Lynn would have been shafted yesterday on the wing and targeted for sure,fridays derby win took too much out of the players and i dont think spelling lynn would have made such a difference in terms of the result,only a bigger deficit.

The way it appears to me is that Lynne was deemed not ready to play against Wire, but was picked on the bench because there simply weren't any other better options to make the squad up to 17. The alternative would have been fielding just 16 players and I'm not sure that's even allowed under the rules.

In other words, we just didn't have 17 players fit and ready to play on the day, so whoever got the final bench spot would have sat the game out.

So why not put Calderwood/Briscoe/Tickle/Lauaki/The old faithful there, just to make Wire think?

I agree with the general point btw and that Agar's hand was forced by the injury to Long, but it's not the first time he's put someone on the bench and not used them, which puts extra pressure on the 16 "suitable" players.

Also begs the question that if Lyne/Tuffour/Kent etc are deemed good enough to earn a full time professional contract, why are they not good enough to step in to the side when needed?

top post mate

It probably wouldn't have affected the result. It might well have affected it, however. Playing a player in the position they play when we're short in that position is not throwing them to the dogs, it's using your squad sensibly.



As I've said before, I really don't care about the personnel, I just want what's best for the team.



In which case, it's quite a sad case of affairs that no-one else was able to give 15-20 minutes to help spell the obviously tired forwards.

Pre-submit edit: and what Chris28 says above.

Playing a player who has just struggled against one of the bottom placed sides in the competition, in an already depleted squad against one of the top teams in the competition is not using your squad sensibly.

Yes, it is. That's what the squad is for. We have these players in the squad to cover when cover is needed, as it sorely was yesterday.

The purpose of the squad is to expose youngsters who are not ready for it to a battering?

We'd still have lost, possibly by a bigger margin, and a young player would have had his confidence shot. Yes, that's definitely a better option.

the need to add unplanned for substitutions (e.g. Long retiring hurt and Radford's earlier rotation because of a hit to the head) meant that the number of rotations was greatly reduced. Lyne would have added nothing had he been intorduced under these circumstances. I believe he would have played if we had got through the match on the normal (planned) rotations.

It's questionable why Long started to be honest, at one point I commented to the guy behnd me that we'd be switching to unlimited interchanges the rate we were getting through them!

Again, I agree with the general point, but why put such players in the squad if they aren't ready?

Edit - and I don't mean the 17/19 man squad.

agar is doing a good job so far for us yes we have lost four games so what

think the leeds coach is in more trouble then what we are in

Match day experience ? Training with better players ? Helping there development ?

To get full time training

Don't need to be in the squad for that



They don't do that during the week? Are the under 20's kept completely separate from the first team??



Maybe, but when are they going to develop if they don't get to play because they aren't "good" enough?

Fair enough with the first point.

As far as I'm aware they train with the first team, full time, the U20s only train part time.

It's not about been good enough, it's that the aren't ready yet. Training with more physical players will only help them be ready for Super League faster.

Done all I asked for this week, beat Rovers and put in two good displays, playing much better rugby also.

Yes, that's exactly what I said.

The purpose of the squad is to use the players within it. We had both first choice wingers (or 'wingers' in Briscoe's case) out. We had a winger in the first team squad who was fit and available. Yet we moved four other players out of position to avoid playing a winger on the wing. And left ourselves a man short. That's poor use of the squad. If Lyne isn't capable of standing in on the wing for a game when he's needed, he shouldn't have a contract and be a member of the first team squad.



Pure supposition. And it doesn't make the decision any less wrong.

I didn't want him to come off the bench, he shouldn't've been on the bench to start with.

And the fans' response at the end of yesterday's match suggests that most people are equally satisfied.

Pure bollox as usual

Nonsense. As has been highlighted above, full time training and being around the first team squad will all help a player to make the step up. That doesn't mean they automatically have to be ready to play against one of the strongest sides in the competition 8 games into their debut season. Playing a winger on the wing for the sake of it, regardless of whether they are ready or not is just stupid.



The decision was not wrong. It was sensible under the circumstances to play more experienced personnel rather than leaving a 17 year old kid exposed when it wouldn't have made a difference to the result.

It wouldn't be 'for the sake of it' though, would it? It would be for the sake of picking the strongest available team. And the team we went with, a man short and players out of position, was not the strongest available team.



Again, supposition. What actually happened during the game was that Washbrook struggled at 6 and wasn't in position to put in the work that he would have from 13, Turner didn't get enough of the ball, likewise Hall, and the back-row, Manu and Radford particularly, were struggling for fitness in the last 15, the time when we needed to be tight in defence and also needed Manu at his most potent in attack. Hicks ran in three tries anyway, Yeaman dealt with King as would be expected, so I don't think Lyne would be any more exposed than Hall was (a player who, let's not forget, is routinely criticised for not being good enough defensively). Lyne probably wouldn't have added anything, and he might have been slightly worse than Hall, but we'd have been far better off in other areas of the pitch.