Agree with alot of this, particularly the radford at 13, I can't believe anyone thinks he should play at 13, and if we're struggling at 13 (due to washy injury), playing radford there is the last option. He's not creative, he's a hard work merchant - love to know Agar's logic there, but fear it's as you suggest - when there's not a place in 2nd row, or prop (where his future lies for me, if at all, if Tickle, manu, Fitz et-al perform).

I remember Whiting playing LF against Saints a few seasons ago and he had a stormer. I always feel like were more of a threat with Whiting on the field.

Agar know best, please don't make me laugh.He's seen the players train for the last god knows how many years and as assistant and now as head coach, and all he's proved is that he's useless in tactics, team selection and motivation.

The times he was picked at centre he could have been picked at 13. I can argue about plenty of time cos there has been. This is now pointless as we don't agree. If he gets his chance then we will see how he does, I won't be holding my breathe though.

Yes, we could have moved Radford into the centre. Good idea.



The fact is, when he was playing centre, he was the best person for that job. As I said before, it's about options. If the overall structure of the team would be weakened by playing Whiting at LF and someone less capable at centre, then, of course, it shouldn't be done.

So, no, you can't argue that there have been plenty of opportunities, because it's not true.

That's because we are. He showed enough last season when he was playing at FB to suggest that the more involved he gets, and the more times he has the ball in his hands, the more dangerous our attack will be.