I agree with much of what you say Sebasteeno but who are you referring to when you talk about signing "has beens and over the hills"?

I don't think any of the recent signings come into that category. Do you?

Cetainly not Fitzgibbon, Long and O'Meley. Not Calderwood either IMO.

Cusack would probably be the most recent. Matt Sing before him. Nathan Blacklock too maybe but these two were a few years ago now.

For me making the playoffs as an also ran is not acceptable or good enough. A club our size with a good coach setting up should be challenging on all fronts with a realistic chance of winning any 1 of the 3 titles on offer.
We should have kicked on from the GF appearance when we had a realistic chance of doing so but instead we fall behind at an alarming rate.
Taking this season in isolation we have done relatively well however take the Agar tenure as a whole and we have been poor. We would have been hard pushed to finish any lower this season than the last 2 so for people to accept this mediocrity is beyond me. People talk as if ours is the only club to be affected with injuries and trot out the old woe is me line everytime.
A sign of a good coach and team is how you battle and perform in adversity and we do neither well. Our short comings are so obvious and we are so 1 dimensional.
But if some people are happy to accept that then so be it.

If we lose the last 4 games and Cas win their last 4 we'll end up in 8th, playoffs of some description are garunteed.

I thought that was the situation. In which case, it will be trumpeted as a success regardless of any other factors.

Seems to me that we don't deserve to be top four with the half baked performance of last week. All the arguments of "take 6 players out of any team and they'll get beat" does'nt wash. We were 4th, would any of the other 3 teams above us have lost 46-0 at home? Nah I don't thinks so either.
Yes we've done well to be where we are but the manner of our play is poor and scrappy, with the odd good performance thrown in.

Not sure on Fitzs stats but he must of now only played in half our games. O'Meley must of missed a third of games too and as for Long well signing him was a joke from the start and with no understudy to replace him when he was inevitably injured (ask saints) or indeed teach it was the probably the worst signing of the lot. Now i know they are or were good players but how can any team wanting to realistically challenge build a team around these players when they hardly ever play or will be gone in two years? What happens when their contracts end? Sign another aging Aussie for another two years and repeat the same scenario me thinks. Its rubbish and shows the short sighted crap Agar and the board are only capable of.

Fitz has played in 16 of a possible 24 league & cup games this season so two thirds. O'Meley is the same.

According to SL stats & HullFC .com.

So just over half then and as i thought

Slightly more than that Seb !

2/3 to be accurate

Two thirds. Slightly more than "just over half"

Fitzgibbon and O'Meley have both played 17 games, Long 13.

The stats section on the superleague.co.uk website only say 16 for both.

And to be fair, more than 50% appearances for Longy would be better than I thought at the start of the season*.



[size*I know the season ain't over

and in 90% of those games they have tried their best and had an impact, how many other players have been on the field for more games but may we as not have bothered!

I'm including the cup game, mate.