Not at all, Just having a bit of fun,just like you !
Pillows at the ready then on Friday night !

With regards to washbrook think you are being a little harsh TBH. On sunday was his first competitive game (lack of match fitness and form) and being asked to lead the team around from halfback is a lot different then playing at 13 IMO.

Personally think with our lack of options having both a pivot at fullback and loose forward would give us more and better options and create more confusion in the oppositions minds

Ill get slated for it but imo Washbrook simply isnt good enough for any team wanting to be in the play offs in SL. Its because we had players of Washbrook and Lees' calibre playing every week last season that we was so poor. Without him we improve, with him back in and its back to gash rugby.

We play the aussie way now Paul, our extra pivot comes from Full back and an extra prop type is used at 13. TBH i don't disagree with it either, the days of ball playing 13's has gone for me.
I like Danny but when was the last time he played and started at 13?

Washy was injured for a lot of last season. HTH

Having ball players at 1 and 13 just doesn't really happen anymore.

Maybe it was a touch harsh but he isn't the only one I have criticised. He is listed in our squad as a Loose Man/Off half. He played in the halves in the Sheffield warm up (not the same admittedly) and didn't impress then either. He is 24 now and my point is when will he impose himself on games in a way which will stamp his authority ? Don't get me wrong I would love it to be this Friday and lots of games thereafter it's just that this idea of him being the pivot we need at loose man pre-supposes he is a good pivot player and I'm not sure I've seen that often enough to agree.

In fairness he was but did play 10 games in 2009.

I would tend to agree with you but TBF to Washy he hasn't really had the chance to make 13 his own for a long time now, it's just not how we play anymore.

I kind of agree with you and I'm struggling to think of many games when he had a standout performance. He had plenty of potential when he came into the side but hasn't really kicked on, for a variety of reasons, which tends to be the way at this club.

Is now a good time to point out that when the sides were read out on Sunday Washy was named at 6 and Horne at 7. I know Washy tried to play something more resembling a scrum halfs role but was this because he had taken it upon imself to do so with Horne being so uncreative? Who actually played 7 on Sunday?

These days I think 6 and 7 is interchangeable even down to who puts the ball in the scrum. 7 tends to be the first receiver but not always. As much as anything it's the directing of play that is important and it would appear no one was really doing that on Sunday as you imply.

I've said all along washbrook should be LF and fitz 2nd row. We shouldn't really have signed another back rower but you can understand them wanting to bring someone of fitz's standing in.

As it is we have good quality SL players sat in the stands because we have too many forwards and we have no cover at HB and not enough quality in the 3/4's

Washbrook isn't a massively creative nor and organiser. he shouldn't be anywhere near the halves. He does have the occasional creative input into a game and his workrate is excellent which is why I'd play him at LF. You wouldn't lose too much in defence and he would offer another option in attack

Exactly right, but the problem then is who loses their place in the 2nd row? unless you're going to use Manu and Lauaki off the bench.