All I've said is that we have a real weakness when it comes to knockout competition. Agar's approach seems to be to try and fix the problems from a game during the week in time for the next match, but that is not possible in the knockout stages. That's why I can't see us winning a trophy under him.

Making the CC Final is an achievement, as is making the playoffs, but neither mean that we are any threat in them. We should be, but I fancy that currently we are one of the teams the big boys hope to draw at crunch time.

I think it's more down to the quality of side. Agar is trying to improve ours. If he does I'd expect more success in the cup and playoffs. If he doesn't - well as above. We got to Wembley in 2008 thanks in the main to Adam Dykes - a top quality playmaker. He didn't play in the final and we lost. Better players will in the main produce more success. I'm not sure we've had good enough players in key positions in recent years to expect to be beating top sides in knockout games with any regularity.

Whereas I think it's more down to our one-dimensional approach. If a team is capable of bottling us up, we don't have a plan b to turn the game in our favour.

You highlight our lack of a playmaker and I agree it's a factor. The problem I have with that though, is that it should not be so heavily down to our playmaker to be responsible for our success or failure. At some point our coach should be able to influence the game with the players at his disposal, not just resort to the basics and hope for the best.

And lastly, it's not that we don't beat top sides in knockout games with regularity, we don't beat top sides in knockout rugby at all at the moment.

We'll have to disagree about playmakers. They've always been key since I've been watching - behind a competent pack of course. In the modern game they are even more vital as they often provide the kicking game required to push back the opposition and create scoring opportunities. So they are by definition a vital part of a team's success. It's why they tend to be expensive to hire (good ones that is). Leuluai/Tompkins, Burrow/Maguire/Sinfield, Long/Pryce/Eastmond, Briers/Monaghan and even Brough/Brown/Drew are all better than what we've had and the relative success of their respective teams is proof of that. Our recruitment of this type of player in recent seasons has been woeful - a major contributor to our recent lack of success IMO.

Oh, don't get me wrong, they are incredibly key. What I was trying to say (perhaps unclearly) is that we shouldn't be so dependent on only one, and have that person be responsible for how we play rugby. The better sides have multiple quality playmakers, and a system that they all fit into and replacements then slot into when needed.

It just seems that with other clubs the coach sets out the strategies and gets the players to carry them out, whereas with us Agar thinks it's fine to leave it all to Long, and Dykes before him. I see it as the difference between hiring someone to help implement your ideas, and buying someone in to provide them because you don't have any.

There are far too many basic elements missing from our attack to say it's just about the quality of players.

You can have as many ideas as you like but if there isn't the quality to apply them then they wont be applied. While I type I'm watching Danny Brough mesmerise Wire. I doubt very much that move was Nathan Brown's idea - but is was top quality by a much improved half back.



I agree that our support play and dummy running options are well below the necessary level. This is where Agar should make the required improvement and take us higher in the league. The next 6 or 7 months will show whether he can or not.

I think you're just looking to make excuses now, if you're saying that the reason for our poor rugby is because our players aren't good enough to do what Agar says. The vast majority of that squad now have been seen to play much better stuff in the past, so it's not that. And as for the Brough try, it was a lovely piece of improvising. So does that mean if we signed him all would be well? I just really think that this idea that a quality half back would instantly solve all of our problems is pure fantasy. We have many problems and thinking it's up to a scrum half to fix them and not the coach is deluding ourselves IMO.



Exactly, but he's done nothing about them in 2 and a half years. If we had better and more options in attack it would make our half-backs jobs easier and make them look better. It's a two-way street, the playmakers need the players around them doing the right things, not standing around until they're told what to do. The organisation of the team is mostly down to the coach, suggesting it's more about the creative players available to him is passing the buck.

Utter garbage that's not what I'm saying at all and you know it. What I'm saying is that you can't be successful without having top quality players in key positions - you seem to think that isn't very important judging by your comments on playmakers - a bizarre position to take. I hardly need to make excuses for my position on that I think most people who have a reasonable knowledge of the game would say the same.




When has Washbrook/Berrigan/Lee/Turner combinations led top teams to glory in playmaking roles ? Because it's these players that have played the majority of games at half back (playmakers) these last 2 or 3 years. I know you don't feel that's important but I do.



Not all well no - why do you keep implying I think it would solve "All of our problems" ?. But it would strengthen us in the playmaking and kicking departments so it would improve us. As would many other potential signings of similar ilk.



I say again you seem to believe that getting better players wouldn't help. I think you're totally wrong but I also don't think it's the only thing we need to do and I haven't said I do think that anywhere - you're just putting words into my mouth. Quote where I said that "a quality half back would instantly solve all of our problems".

NO SHIIIIT SHERLOCK

Oh boy oh boy. Not a ball has been passed and your complaining. For god sake if your a true fan you'll back em through thick and thin. And if your brave enough to come on here as a a unknown, get yourself a pair of balls and get yourself to a fans forum and stand up, show yourself and put these sort of negative comments face to face with the CEO, coach and players, instead of whinging on.
I for one think weve got a good squad which needs tweaking here and there, and everyone knows we should be able to attract a world class half back, but what Agar said at the forum, is they are not out there at the moment, the weather doesnt attract them and the rate of exchange £/Aus$ isn't good, so unless you know a fantastic 23yr old world beater of a halfback that likes peanut butter and has a dog, I suggest you back the mighty HULL FC and wipe that sad look off your face when we win the challenge cup final again and do the double by winning the grand final as well, then maybe you will be happy. Cos from where i am sitting we look good but we need to be tweaked.

I'm not saying it's not important, I'm saying it shouldn't be responsible for everything. The lack of quality creative players should not affect the team's ability to back up, run good lines with multiple dummy options, and generally create doubt in the opposition's defensive minds. That's our main problem, it's too obvious what we are going to do so the opposition stand a better chance of preventing it. Take Wakey's second try, it wasn't the quality of Obst's pass that made it, it was the fact that Ferguson ran a good line and half the Cas eyes were on Morrison's dummy run.

Let me try and be clearer, I'm possibly making a bad job of it. Quality playmakers are vital, but more organisation would both help us cope better when we're without ours, and help them out when we do have them fit. Even if we brought better pivotal players in, I think our set-up would still make it hard for them to look any better than what we have.



Firstly, Berrigan does not belong in that group. Secondly, I've not said it's not important, I'm saying we're hiding behind that for just how bad we are in attack. I'm not expecting there to be no difference when we're without our first choices, I'm expecting the difference to not be so great.



Getting better players always helps, but we still may not get the best from those in the way that I don't think we are getting the best from those we have/have had. We'll have to see how we go this year, but based on the last 2 I think we could have been a better side than we have been without any personnel changes.

Looking at the HDM "SL Preview" really shows a few points, it compares us and them,

Now we finished 6th with 16 wins, they finished 7th with 14 wins and a draw, but look at these:

They scored 84 more points, 13 more tries, 15 more goals 2 more DG's
We only made 200 more meters, made 200 more carries
They made 200 more tackles, 48 more attacking kicks
We did 109 more runs from dunny half (good old one man rugby)
They did more clean breaks, more 40/20's, more open play kicks
They did miss 250 more tackles than us
We only made one more error than them
And we conceded 36 more penalties.

I hope we have been working hard, improvements on those figures would be a start for the year.

im not sure why making more runs from dummy half is "one man rugby" Its great vision and often can mean a quick play the ball getting the oppo on the back foot... I think at times in the past.. pre houghton, we probably never made enough scoots