It wouldn't be 'for the sake of it' though, would it? It would be for the sake of picking the strongest available team. And the team we went with, a man short and players out of position, was not the strongest available team.



Again, supposition. What actually happened during the game was that Washbrook struggled at 6 and wasn't in position to put in the work that he would have from 13, Turner didn't get enough of the ball, likewise Hall, and the back-row, Manu and Radford particularly, were struggling for fitness in the last 15, the time when we needed to be tight in defence and also needed Manu at his most potent in attack. Hicks ran in three tries anyway, Yeaman dealt with King as would be expected, so I don't think Lyne would be any more exposed than Hall was (a player who, let's not forget, is routinely criticised for not being good enough defensively). Lyne probably wouldn't have added anything, and he might have been slightly worse than Hall, but we'd have been far better off in other areas of the pitch.

On this we will have to differ. Putting a young player (and one who has just struggled against Salford) into a patched up team against Warrington would have been asking for bother. I'm glad Agar is making these decisions and not you.



And this isn't supposition?

Did you see the Salford game? It proved that Lynne, whilst a very good prospect, is not ready yet. That Hicks scored 3 tries anyway is immaterial. He might well have scored even more if Lynne had played. Agar got it right. Live with it.

All those who scurried off early?

Some people leave early for various reasons but at the end of the match there were many thousands who stayed behind to show their appreciation for the effort the team put in.

And I'd rather he was making the correct decisions instead of the one he made yesterday.



I don't think it is supposition to say that Hall would be better at centre than Turner, Turner would be better at 6 than Washbrook, Washbrook would be better at 13 than Radford and Radford/Burnett would provide more off the bench than no-one. It's less certain what Lyne would offer, but he'd be playing on the wing, outside a centre who was always going to deal fairly well with his opposite number, so Lyne would have Hicks to deal with and not much else.



It proved that on two occasions in that game he made the wrong call in defence. It might have suggested other things about his readiness, but we'll never know if he's left on the side-line for the rest of his career because he might not be ready. Yesterday was exactly the sort of situation that he should be being turned to, but a lack of willingness to take a risk meant that didn't happen. And that's an endemic problem with the attitude towards the game in this country, both from coaches and fans.

Agar got it wrong. Live with it.

We're going round in circles. The majority seem to think he got it right and you have said yourself that it 'probably' wouldn't have made a difference to the result. As I said, whatever my feelings about Agar (and the jury is definitely still out), I'm glad it was him picking the side yesterday and not the minority on here who seem to think that exposing a 17 year old to a pasting was a good idea.

This is my final word on the subject.

Our wigners and centres did a good job in defence, Lyne would have got murdered. I understand the whole playing a man down but we had little option really.

That's what I was going to ask, who was available and fit to play in Lyne's place?

The rest of his career, he's 17 for gods sake and it's a huge step up from the U20's to SL. He could not handle Broughton and Hicks is a far better player.

Agar had little option and I suggest people live with that.

Liam Kent was 18th man. I'd have rather put him on the bench as a back rower than carry a winger. Saying that he'd have probably got murdered by the big Wire pack.

Indeed, and once bitten, which Agar was with Lynne at Salford, maybe Agar actually got this one right, explained to Lynne he was unlikely to play unless really necessary, but he wanted him to know he is very much part of the future make-up of the senior side, in a way putting his arm around him and building his confidence back slowly.

Had we won, nobody would have mentioned it.

However its not the first time Agar has done this

That's just another way of saying he got it right!

Still think it's too much to ask to compete only having 2 subs once Long was injured. At that point Agar should have decided to use Lyne imo.

Not saying it is, but nobody has come up with a viable alternative and explained why it had more merit than what Agar did.

He still didn't leave some players on the pitch for long enough for me, or even start with the right ones, that is worth debate, but not sending Lynne or Kent into get slaughtered by SL's second best side really doesn't need explaining.

As Agar himself has said, had it been a normal turnaround between games most players would have made it, the short turnaround forced his hand to a great extent.

Im the guys biggest critic, but I also think people should offer alternatives and not just slate the guy.