DHM - I don't find your disagreement patronising, just your need to define positions and vocabulary for me; if we do disagree, that doesn't mean my understanding of the hooking role or aggression is necessarily different, it just means we see things differently. I think I've been more than fair in what I've said in my posts without being personal (I hardly think anyone could call me insecure).

You seem to have missed the point a little bit with Hood - the age is not the point, of course we've had players who've been well established by the time they were 20, but they were brought through gradually; rarely have we had a player who's been thrown in the deep end and had a long, successful, consistently good-performing career with us.

To be honest its nice to have a positive poster on here. I'm kind of split on the subject though, i think while McDermott needs to be questioned for the performance (opposite to what the OP thinks) i agree with him that the criticism shouldn't go into abuse territory. Healthy and non-too-personal criticism is ok, going onto booing during games, name calling and disrespectful comments i think is unnecessary.

I believe Swiftcorn got a bit of a ban following an argument on the VT with an Aussie about Aussie Rules Football and claiming he knew Australia better than a guy who lives there. Don't know if it applies to here though but his absence is greatly appreciated.

Quote: Gotcha "Come on folks. This is another AP/Keith alias. Don't get sucked in.'" It's not really a case of getting sucked in, as others have commented it's remained a civil discussion. I've always been notoriously poor at identifying the men behind the 'characters' but agree it's likely to be one of the regulars. Either way it's provided an outlet for some frustration. Will it change anyone's view - I doubt it. rhinowinorlose probably still thinks Henry Paul wasn't replaced at the Harlequins and that he was always a leading role model off the field : news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 038590.stm I'm guessing the Quins were just grateful he wasn't the chauffeur driver behind the wheel of that Mercedes S280.

Quote: Gotcha "Come on folks. This is another AP/Keith alias. Don't get sucked in.'" It's not really a case of getting sucked in, as others have commented it's remained a civil discussion. I've always been notoriously poor at identifying the men behind the 'characters' but agree it's likely to be one of the regulars. Either way it's provided an outlet for some frustration. Will it change anyone's view - I doubt it. rhinowinorlose probably still thinks Henry Paul wasn't replaced at the Harlequins and that he was always a leading role model off the field : news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 038590.stm I'm guessing the Quins were just grateful he wasn't the chauffeur driver behind the wheel of that Mercedes S280.

Agreed. It's a discussion forum, this is a discussion. Does seem to wind a few people up though - not sure why.

I think in short they players have to take the criticism for the way they play and they shouldn't be exempt from criticism but equally the manager has to take some blame for the standard of play and tactics used in the game.