I'd go the other way and start Washy and then bring Houghton on for the last 20 of each half against tiring defences.

I can see the principle behind your thinking on this, but I think there are too many question marks over Washbrook's suitability for the position to start off that way. Houghton is an out-and-out, very good hooker. Washbrook is a loose forward who might do a job there, but is still only really in the frame by default because of our lack of options (I also still have my doubts that his distribution is good enough). Houghton has earnt the starting spot for the foreseeable future IMO.

I think times have changed whereby you earn a starting spot. I believe you earn a spot in the 17 and should then be used as is most beneficial for the team.

For me we get more benefit out of both Manu and Houghton coming off the bench. Agar will start them both though.

On the hooker debate i believe Washy has a better defence that Houghton and will deal better with the opening 20 mins of a game with regards to defensive work needed. I've likened Washy to Cunningham before and could seriously see him starting like Kieron did and then for Houghton to come on and do the Roby. Works in my head anyway!!

I agree to a point. Some players are more suited to coming off the bench against tired players. However, when one player is clearly better than another (as I think is the case here), he should be playing the most minutes possible, and the best way to do that is having them in the starting lineup.



Not sure I think that about Manu any more. He's been excellent over the last 2 seasons whilst starting, and Lauaki is more suited to the bench than him IMO.

I agree, Houghton needs to spend more time on the pitch than Washbrook and he should be the person to start games. He no longer needs to come on to make an impact he has started to have an impact when starting games and has become a major influence in games.

Washy will be an experiment and until we know how he is going to go in that position I would be reluctant to start him. He defends well and his distribution is ook but it's whether or not he has enought pace to get out of dummy half and engage defenders plus does he have the fitness to get to every ptb.

His distribution is questionable IMO. It's a bit laboured and gets a bit temperamental when he tries to speed it up. I worry that this could be more of a problem at hooker, where we'd need him to be quick and accurate consistently.

Couldn't agree more with all of that

Guess it depends what the desired effect is. Do argue from a different angle, do you want your star player to be on the pitch for more minutes or do you want them to be on the pitch for less minutes if it makes them a more effective player? If for example we played Fitz at prop for 50 min instead of 13 for 80 mins and it made him more effective in the 50 mins he was on isnt that better?

Guess thats my arguement with Houghton. I'd sooner see him play 40 mins at 95% than 60 mins at 80%. I'd also want to see him operate when it plays to his strengths and i still firmly believe he needs to come off the bench and take the line on when both the square markers and the defensive line are tiring a little bit.

Problem is though, because we have 12 inter-changes, there's a lot of swapping about around the 20-30 min mark. So Houghton won't be as effective in the first half anyway.
My strategy would be to start Houghton to try and get us on the front foot, bring Washy on after 25 and then let Houghton back for the last 25 when defences really are tiring.
This also gives us options in the 2nd row if injuries happen during a game.

I take your point and agree to an extent but we are not talking about two hookers, we have one hooker and one makeshift hooker. For me Houghton has to start the game and be on the pitch longer unless Washy settles into the role really quickly.

Washy at hooker is an interesting one.

Defence is good enough, has good hands, strong go foward.

Not sure his distribution is it quick enough somes times he seems a bit laboured.

Houghton has to start as his all around hooking game is much better than Washbrook, including defence *see stats.

But if we are to play Berrigan at centre, we need someone on the bench who can come on if needed, the good thing about having Washbrook there is that he can cover other position aswell, if the squad stays the same I would give him a couple of warm up games at hooker to see how he goes.

But if the one that is a makeshift hooker does a job for 30-40 mins in the game that allows Houghton to win us a game in his 40 mins then i think it's the move to make.

Lets say for example: (1)
min 0-20 Washy plays 9. He is 60% effective because he's not a hooker
20-40 Houghton plays 9 off the bench. He is 95% effective

40-60 Washy back on. 50% effective
60-80 Houghton back on. 85% effective
Total out of a possible 400% = 290% (avg of 72.5%)

Alternative example 2
Houghton plays 0-80 and is 60% effective due to fatigue
Total out of a possible 400% = 240% (avg of 60%)

Alternative example 3
Houghton plays 0-30 mins at 75% (down from 95% in option 1 due to longer spell)
Washy plays 30-60 mins at 60%
Houghton plays 60-80 mins at 60%
Total possible out of 400% = 262.5% (avg of 65.6%)

Obviously my numbers are slightly bias to win my arguement but again for me this kind of makes sense.

Whiting to Full-back and Tansey to share hooking dutys anyone?

Do you want me to map out another scenario like the one above with Tansey sharing the hooker duties?