Had a fairly decent game last night, but I still think that he shouldn't be in the side for next season. We've just got too many grafters in the team and he's one of them. Plays at 13 but plays like a prop, which imo is affecting the team and how we play in attack. We need another ball handler in at 13 to give us more options with ball in hand. Whiting or Washbrook would be fine there for us. For next season I still see him being in the team at loose man, so there for who is going to miss out?

With the rumours of Tickle going at the end of next season I'd like to see a back 3 of;

Burnett
Fitz
Washy/Whiting

But can honestly say that I see it lining up more like;

Fitz
Manu
Radders...

discuss...

berrigan to 13 for me.

Radders should not be at LF. We'll have enough presence in the pack next year to mean we can go with a ball-handling LF. Radders should be cover for prop and 11/12 next season IMO.

don't want tickle to go either what ever he's like off the pitch. with some of his buddies leaving i hope. then next season last chance saloon to grow up a bit.

Works for me Mrs. B, Where's the shoes by the way

For me, the pack next season could be pretty good, if we re-sign a couple more players.

At prop, I would be happy with Cusack, Dowes, Lauaki and O'Meley, as first choice, with Thackray and Maloney as cover/instead of Dowes. King's had a few good games, but I don't know if he can continue this good form and would be worth having.

Then, in the second row we can choose from Fitz, Tickle, Manu and Burnett, all of whom I am happy with.

Then at Loose Forward I would play Washbrook as a first choice, with Lee there if Washbrook is unavailable.

I would keep Whiting as a centre, I think he plays well there and gives 100% effort, and he can be cover at 6 if Horne is injured/at fullback, or as a cover fullback if both Tansey and Horne are out.

Looks pretty good to me. That's what I would do, anyway.

Now flame me.

Not a fan at all of Radford but I thought he stood up to be counted for last night and put in a fantastic effort, some quality off loads aswell.

Every single one of his offloads came after he was dominated in the tackle. Fair enough, he got the ball away, but it doesn't really add anything if you're looking to offload virtually before contact has even been made. The one time he did actually run properly, he went through two defenders, landed on elbows and knees, and got a quick play (!) from which we gained good ground. Why did that only happen once? He showed he has the ability, yet he was still insistent on turning his back into the tackle at every other opportunity.

Defensively, he was terrible. Constantly run through by the forwards (and Burrow, FFS), ending up on the wrong side of the tackle and struggling to get set at marker. Added to that, he spent more time laid on the ground for no reason than anyone I can remember. Every couple of minutes he seemed to be sprawled out, even when he hadn't been involved in the tackle.

And that told me



To be fair, I wasn't obviously watching the game as close as you.

Just a workhorse imo.Tackled well but missed some too.

<<

When Ryan Hall got dumped into touch by Raynor on tackle 5 at the resulting PTB it was Radford that put his hand up



The thing was though he put his hand up to play the ball essentially taking himself out of the next 2/3 tackles even though we were pinned in our own 20



Dont get me started on the whole Radford at 1st reciever ploy which crept back into our game yesterday

Why take a class player out of his best position and put him somewhere that you already have some good players.

I wasn't meaning to have a go, it's just that these things often stand out with Radford, so they get more obvious to me every week. You'll get some on here who will claim that he does 'the little things' that nobody notices when, in actuality, it is these 'little things' that he doesn't do and it is these things that he really should be doing in his role.

To be fair, that is a very little thing and he performed it expertly. The ball rolled without too much wobble and it was very easy to pick up. Not many could have done that job better.



It wouldn't be so bad were it not so obvious, [ievery time[/i, that he's going to throw a deep wedge ball. Even King occasionally looks like he's taking a drive before he passes it, but Radford always, always looks like he's going to do exactly what he does. There's no forward movement, no engaging of the defence and no disguise to the play at all. He could really do with watching Graham to see how to give a pass whilst keeping the defence interested.

i'll try any be polite as i can.

you know f**k all about rl.

your gasnier comments proved it.

stick to hkr.

The posters behind the 'Rommel' persona are purely after reactions (and do remarkably well considering the extremely weak and transparent material. That says more about the responders than anything, though).



The frequency is a 'Radford thing'. The extra yards are negligible, pointless and at the expense of a quick play. It increases the possibility of slipping a pass out but removes any chance of getting a good position on the ground, winning the tackle, breaking/busting the tackle or doing anything else remotely positive. Yesterday, he was setting himself to offload even before he'd make 'impact' (if you can call it that) with the defenders. That means the main benefit of an offload (forcing the tacklers to make an extra tackle for no gain, tiring them and meaning they are out of position) was negated, with them not having to engage with Radford and being able to retreat to rejoin the line with no chance of them being caught out.



I've pointed out in another thread why Radford's effort here was terrible. He made good contact with the smallest player in the game, had has arms around Burrow and was brushed off easily.



That was, obviously I thought, a little less serious than the other points (still true, still poor play, but not something to get too worked up about). Maybe you should reassign the "'most stupid remark' ever posted" award.



There's not much I can do to change that. If you're willing to accept low standards on the say so of a partially-sighted thug (another not-totally-serious remark there, just in case you didn't pick up on it), that's your prerogative. I'd rather watch the game and make my own decisions if that's alright with you.

I think Radders is ok, he does his job, doesn't set the world alight. But, he isnt that sort of player. His captain credentials are questionable but i dont know how influencial he is off the field and in training.

He is however not a LF, look at Leeds, they have their LF who very easly slots in at 6 and leads them around the park. We need another creative player there, Washy i do rate but would have hoped he was more influencial on games with the ball in hand when he is playing

Berrigan for LF next year for me. Radders back up front row.

Pretty well summed up.

You see this is what makes me laugh. Not this particular comment, but the number of times I read people saying who Agar should play where.

I bet every week the team playing on the park has been picked in their precise positions by various people on here but it's never the right formation when it's assessed on this board afterwards. No we'd rather all say move Washbrook to 6, Berrigan to centre, Whiting to 13 (that one's me by the way), R Horne to fullback, Lee to second row, Hall to centre, Radford to prop, get rid of King, Thackeray, Cusack and Dowes, Manu to start, get rid of Tickle. It's just laughable. Yeaman can't tackle etc etc etc.

I'd love to see us all being assessed in our workplaces in the same way. Move Chucky to toilet cleaning, Wilf to fork-lift, Standee to bagel production, Kosh to HR, ComeOnYouUll to reception, downtheante to the complaints desk.

I think it was Millward who said when asked if he read what they said on the message boards "if you listen to the people in the stands, you end up sitting with them".

top post

Well said!!!

I am though just wondering how many more posts are going to go off at the same tangent...

It wasn't Millward - or at least he wasn't the first to use the phrase.

And I don't think anyone expects Agar to base his selections on what's said on here. Well - maybe one or two might.

It's a discussion forum. You seem to be struggling with that concept somewhat.

Indeed, luckily for us Agar keeps ballsing things up which allows us to discuss him!!