he should b given a run art in under 20s to get him a game under is belt and bring his match fitness up to scratch. Some people are saying what if he plays and gets the winner but what if he plays and has a stinker cos hes not fully fit? Then you will get same people on here moanin about him and moanin about agar for playing him.

He does seem to live something of a charmed life. Maybe he has the negatives to the photographs that are keeping Agar in employment?

I didn't think Horne was that solid, gave away far too many penalties and sloppy missed tackles, and lost the ball in the tackle far too much. Case in point was 2006. His best season for us, but within 60 seconds in the GF Saints showed why he was still our biggest weakness and put the game to bed before half time.

Hall and Turner are similar cases, I agree. It's the fact that Hall was better in attack that I rate him more though. When played at centre I don't think there was much difference in their defensive abilities, both of them had the same problems of positional sense and decision making.

Yeah, sorry, I meant now. I think the Huddersfield Horne is doing ok. Unspectacular, but reasonably reliable.



Perhaps, but Turner is stronger in the tackle and not nearly as likely to be handed off/trampled over. He seems to relish the collision a lot more than Hall did, as well.

Fair point, a question of coaching?



Hall was infuriating. When he did make the right choice and go in properly, he could make very good tackles and wrap the man up well. The problem IMO was that too often he'd dither and by the time he made his mind up it was too late to commit to the tackle fully, hence he'd get brushed off. I agree Turner does seem to get stuck in a bit more. I suppose the difference is that Turner makes the wrong decision too often, whereas Hall didn't actually make a decision at all.

Surely not!