No - just that he is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

For example, on Friday he picked the team, apart from Whiting at 13, that many have been calling for but he still didn't get it right. I heard someone near me at the ground say "he was forced into that selection by injuries". But when he raises injuries as being a mitigating circumstance, that's just an excuse.... etc... etc... etc

He damned because he is shoite!

D'oh - well, why didn't you say that in the first place? It would have saved me all this time.

I've been saying it since he was appointed, like many I gave him the benefit of the doubt, but he has done nothing to change my opinion, he has no motivational skill whatsoever, he is naieve in his team selection and rotation, there is no evidence of a plan "a", let alone a "b","c" or "d", to then come out and criticise the very people that pay his wages merely underlines his inability.

Once he is finished at FC

I can't see him getting a head coach job in SL ever again.

Bugger - I'd finiished then but you've raised the "criticise the fans" thing again

which I don't think he did. I think he was making an ill-advised observation that the reaction didn't help.

He picked the team but the fact is he didn't coach and motivate them effectively did he?

Well he will be here next season and what if we do well and are competing near the top of SL? He could then get an extension.

So if James Rule came out with an ill-advised observation that Agar was not performing as was expected of him, results were not good enough, and his relationship with the fans was not helping, would you not say that those were all criticisms? As I've said before, observation and criticism are not mutually exclusive. In actual fact they are strongly linked, as is the case with Agar's comments.

You may well be right that there has been an overreaction, but to entirely dismiss it and say he hasn't criticised the fans is just outright denial IMO.

Exactly. And the fact that it has been noted that most on here named a similar lineup as what they'd like to see shows that most with a half-decent knowledge of the game can pick a fairly good team. What makes a coach is what he does with that team, through tactics, motivation, and an ability to adapt to the gameand it's circumstances as it unfolds.

But did Agar fail to complete the 7 out of the 9 sets?

And when they did start completing sets (in line with his tactics) did they score or not?

I think too much water has gone under the bridge Paul, he just doesn't have the personality IMO.

Do you mean once they had forgotten his pre match and half time talks near the end of the game?