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

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.

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.





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

I questioned why you accused me of saying something that was the opposite of what I actually said. Do you have a better answer than the one I came up with?

I was replying mainly to his physicality ( not bad for a fookin Dumbo eh? Supercilious tw*t) as you mentioned, I really can't be d to argue with someone with such superior intellect. Just going to ask you to look at his stats for an example at the Wakey away game. Not bad for a non-physical player eh?

Agree entirely about Radford - I would take that a stage further and replace your '13' with 'the team'.

I would replace Thorman with Whiting and play Horne at FB if he can play next week. If not then Whiting will have to play FB which he did very well despite not being one. My first priority would always be to remove Thorman from the team. I accept that maybe Rich Whiting hasn't entirely demonstrated a LF workrate but that was the point of my original post - he now needs to be given an opportunity there or SO. Washbrook is not as clever as Whiting in my view and didn't do a great deal earlier in the season to impress however he is bigger. I would be happy if Whiting was given a chance at SO with Berrigan next week. As I say he has the attributes to be the new Crooke and next year he could play with Longy if no other SO is recruited.

You're the only one throwing around the insults. Before this, you tried to make out that I'd claimed Whiting couldn't handle tackling bigger players. I said the exact opposite. If you're still trying to argue against something I didn't say, go right ahead. You won't have much opposition. If you're trying to argue against something I did say, can you make your argument a bit clearer so I at least have something to respond to.

I'd like to avoid having Horne at fullback almost as much as I'd like to avoid having Radford at 13 (or, as you say, in the team at all). Whilst Whiting would probably (almost certainly, in fact) offer more at 6 than Horne has been, I think it would be better overall for Whiting to remain at fullback and for Horne to come in alongside Berrigan.

It will be interesting to see what happens if Horne is out for a period of time and what happens when he returns.

I'd personally like to see him given a go at 6/13. I've said about him playing 13 all season and think it's about time he is given a chance to show what he can do in a more pivotal role.