Whiting could easily fill the gap left by Paul Crooke.
He's got a good range of passing, a great rugby brain, & is ideally suited to play 6 or 13. Plus he's got a good attitude.
I'd like to see him given a position that suits his game & let him have an exended run.
Let's hope we get him signed up soon.

Spot on with many of your points Staffs FC.
Now forgive me if I rant but I have just nicely got home from the pub.
We have seen over the years our beautiful game stifled in my opinion by the Australian influence. Geniuses who could play off the cuff like Tony Dean, Knocker Norton, and Mick Crane, have been squeezed out of our game by worshipping at the alter of defence and sticking to the game plan.
Now back to Richard Whiting. We have a little gem here that has a great footballing brain, can read the game, and get it by the scruff of its neck and change it like we saw tonight.
Richard does not want to be stuck in the centres. Come on Richard Agar take a chance, give him a free reign at say loose or stand off. I dont think he will let you down.
I thank you and good night.

What a fookin post!

He can. I'd much rather see him at 6 than 13, but he can play both. At 6, would you leave Horne out? At 13, I don't think Whiting is able to do the main part of the role for the length of time required. We could go swapping our 13s during the game, but Washbrook is more than capable of putting 80 minutes in every week and can perform every part of the role. So, I just can't see how Whiting will hold down a place at 13.



And Paul Cooke's never played a game at loose in his 'adult' life.



He has. When he's had to make 5 or 6 tackles a game against bigger, more physical players, he's been fine. I'm not disputing that.



I'm not sure how much fact is in there. He's obviously got more skill than Radford and is obviously much better than Thorman. He plays a completely different role to Horne, Tony and Tickle, so I'm not sure what good a comparison will do, but anyway:

Horne's a running stand-off (Whiting wouldn't play that role), Tony's a fullback (Whiting should be playing that role for the rest of the season if Tony doesn't regain fitness) and Tickle plays in the second row (Whiting can play there as an interchange player, but, like at loose, he couldn't do the role for an extended period).



What is 'the issue' and where have I complicated it? Pointing out reasons why someone couldn't play a role that others are advocating he plays isn't complicating anything, it's a basic tenet of deciding on the best course of action.



I've said as much. It further confirms what I've always said a fullback should be able to provide. You won't ever get a more obvious example than tonight's game with the 'safe' Horne providing nothing and Whiting providing much more, with a willingness to take the ball up strongly and the ability to link into the line and provide another option. He's not the running threat that we could do with in that position, but he provides good enough cover, on tonight's evidence, to play that role for the present.



Forget tackles and hit-ups for our 13? No thanks, I won't be doing that.

Staffs FC wrote: Rich Whiting has in the past 'owned' bigger more powerful centres despite not being a centre.


He has. When he's had to make 5 or 6 tackles a game against bigger, more physical players, he's been fine. I'm not disputing that.


Vanikola twice in one game that resulted in 'Our Les' bangin the floor in frustration?

Yes. Your point?

Ah, so you can't read and/or you struggle with comprehension. That explains a lot.

Edit: a deleted post? Maybe you reread what I actually said and understood it this time.

I'll spell my thoughts out again. We need a change of structure where we attack with hopefully 2 ball playing halves who take the line on and potentially a loose forward doing the same. When Danny Maguire is fit Leeds play Burrow/Maguire and Sinfield at 13. Sinfield doesn't rate his game on how many hit-ups/tackles he has made and Burrow/Maguire certainly don't. Sinfield is a creative player with a good kicking game. At the end of the day it isn't about hit-ups and tackles and stats. We need some FOOTBALLERS who can challenge the opposition's defensive structure. Rich Whiting has demonstrated he can tackle and put in a share of work. He can pass accurately at distance off both hands and stand defenders up. Who cares whether he is 6/7/13 at the end of the day these are just numbers. The structure needs changing and he needs to be given the opportunity to play in an attacking role. IMO he would be better than Washbrook at 13 but that is just my opinion. I accept you may differ on that. What we need is a structural change and Rich Whiting should be given a chance to show what he can do in that structure. That is not opinion - our failure to score enough points for 2+ seasons is the stark reality.

No. i insulted you and didn't want to stoop to your level. I have standards, Not ideal standards...still wearing that shirt? Bet you are.
Actually I hold the record for being thrown out of English at my old school. Walked in...said 'Fookin ell not comprehension again?' and got thrown out within 5 seconds of walking in. Still got the A level I needed to be an engineer though, But don't let that stop you pre-judging me.

I've no problem with that as I'd like the same (with a fullback offering similar).



Sinfield does. He gets through an enormous amount of work, especially in defence. He has to, it's part of the role.



He is, but that doesn't mean he doesn't provide the hard work that the role requires as well.





You're preaching to the converted re. stats.



I disagree with the second part. It is precisely that that we haven't seen and it is that that I don't think he can provide at the level required for the time required.



Which is all fair enough, but I just can't see which position he is first choice for, assuming everyone is fit.



I do. Washbrook has shown that he is up to the physical demands of the position, along with being able to create gaps for both himself and others. Whiting's ahead when it comes to creating gaps for others, but behind in the other areas.




I agree. The 'structural change' we need is to get Radford away from 13. I wouldn't mind giving Whiting a go at 13 whilst Washbrook's out, to see if he can up his work rate, but that means we have no-one to cover fullback. In a way, his performance tonight might work against him if he has ambitions for 13 as it could well mean that he won't get a chance before Washbrook's back. Not that Agar would leave Radford out anyway.

I've no idea what any of that means, and I'm not sure you do either.