I don't disagree with everything you say there but, Agar-specific threads like this one apart, it just disappoints me that it's so difficult to talk about Hull FC on this site because so many threads descend into Agar bashing. It's not my intention to defend Agar and suggest that he's got it all because he clearly hasn't. What I do mean to do is defend the board's decision to stand by one man to get some level of consistency and, hopefully, develop into a world-class coach. Now, it's the success of their business that depends upon it, so I suspect they believe their reasons are very good for standing behind him. I also believe that, long-term contract or not, any coach's position is very tenuous and he would soon be gone if he fails miserably. The second half of the season (with a fair wind) should see us with an almost full-strength squad - this will be a true test of his (and the team's) pedigree.

We could be doing even better imo without Agar. Ive not changed my mind on the back of a couple of wins vs poor opposition. I wont change my opinion if we beat Saints either. I really dont think Agar is up to it no matter how well we do performance wise.

Not quite sure I understand.

Are you saying that if our performances are good and we beat teams such as Saints with those good performances, you would still think Agar is not a good enough coach?

Thats exactly what im saying. Ive seen enough mistakes from Agar over the last couple of years without him learning from them. Ive also seen Agar turn a good 17 out every week he has been in charge and arm them with no gameplan and fail. Just because Long and Fitz are back we have started to perform. That for me is not a reflection of Agars coaching ability. He should have been getting more out of the players he had fit rather than moaning about injuries. Just my view though. Im not fickle!!

Me neither. I still have reservations about Agar and believe his coaching ability is a but limited but that said you can't argue about being 4th and also the fact that we have had to come through an injury crisis. The time to judge him is at the end of the season, we might finish 7th and not win a playoff game or we could finish 5th and get through to a playoff semi.

A long way to go yet.

Frustrating though isnt it. How good could we really be with a fully fit 17 and a decent coach!

IMO one of the important indicators of a good coach is how well he gets a side performing in adversity. This is where I have a major problem with Agar. Otherwise he's doing a [ireasonable[/i job, although one or two selections have been a tad confusing and use of the bench continues to be patchy. If he was showing signs of improvement in the areas where he is weak then people might cut him some more slack I feel.

Not sure about that mate. Long wrote our attack playbook. Fitz gives our defence the edge when he plays. Not sure what Agars role is there? Im also not sure that theres anything Agar could coach Long and Fitz so wont be giving him credit.

On the flip side if Hall plays well i'll give Agar credit. (as i will with any of our younger players) Hows Hall playing?

Agree with some of that, although I think we have been through adversity recently with many first-team players out and yet are still clinging on to fourth spot.

The reason for my question was that I was just intrigued by the statement - it seemed illogical. If the team performances improve and we beat teams such as Saints (who are one of three teams above us in the table) then wouldn't that be exactly what we want from our coach and team? Good performances beating the better teams - it's what I've been wanting for over twenty years.

Looking at those weaknesses would you appoint someone brand new into a role in Superleague with them? (or would you expect someone with those kind of weaknesses to move from an assistant role to a head coach role in the NRL to develop?)

I can't recall Agar moaning about injuriesare playing are not "aiming up" or words to that effect.