??????? Thought salary cap would prevent this

1. Whiting
2. Calderwood
3. Turner
4. Yeaman
5. Briscoe
6. Horne
7. Tansey
8. Dowes
9. Houghton
10. O'Meley
11. Manu
12. Tickle
13. Fitz

14. Berrigan
15. Radford
16. Lauaki
17. Washbrook

1) Tansey
2) Calderwood
3) Turner or hall (didnt turner go off injured saturday)
4) Yeaman
5) Briscoe
6) Horne
7) Whiting
8 ) Moa or Cusack
9) Houghton
10) Dowes
11) Manu
12) Tickle
13) Radford

14) Moa
15) Washy
16) Lauaki
17) Hall

Not according to Agar in his interview after the game, he just thought as we were chasing the game that Hall offered more in an attacking sense.

1) Tansey
2) Calderwood
3) Hall
4) Yeaman
5) Briscoe
6) Turner
7) Whiting
8 ) Dowes
9) Houghton
10) Moa
11) Manu
12) Tickle
13) Fitzgibbon

14) Cusack/Radford
15) Horne
16) Lauaki
17) Berrigan

Just for something different to try and make us less unpredictable to play against instead of the usual and the Horne/Washy combo that has yet to deliver anything. I'd prefer to try things instead of reverting to the same stuff that doesnt work.

1.whiting
2.calderwood
3.turner
4.yeamen
5.briscoe
6.horne
7.tansey
8.dowes
9.houghton
10.radders
11.tickle
12.manu
13.fitzgibbon
subs
14.lauaki
15.moa
16.berrigan
17.cusack

obviously because Turner scored we needed to change the attack

I thought he sounded quite upbeat in the interview considering the performance. Certainly didn't seem a piissed off as most of teh fans

And he did'nt get one pass. Great decision Mr Agar

Yes he did, the shocker from Washy when he should have just dropped on it

massive massive gamble to play him but what a player he is and how much we"ve missed him but id rather leave him out for 1 more week then play and get injured again but be great to see him play on thursday

I was told the exact same thing this morning but is it worth the gamble? Surely the bigger picture is more important.