I don't want any player wrapping in cotton wool and would hope that anyone dropped is profesional enough to accept the decision and go about winning their place back in the right manner.

However, Hall had a massive loss of confidence last year mainly due to the fact that he had several poor performances out of position and then Agar seemingly made him the scapegoat.

Hall had a poor game against Wigan, but he was not alone in that department. His defence on the wing last week was questionable several times, but he was hung out to dry and left isolated by teammates far too often.

His general performances, including his defensive duties whilst playing at cannot be questioned this season imo. I would totally understand if Hall feels hard done by and a little upset after been dropped because one poor performance whilst playing out of position.

I think Agar needs to stick to a settled backline sooner rather then later. All the chopping and changing isnt helping us find any consistency in the backs. I know injuries are unavoidable but I would like someone to make the right centre berth their own.

I personally would play Hall at centre every time but I also saw something in Turner at right centre in the derby to suggest he could be a quality alternative.

The thing is, though, Calderwood's back. Our only winger. It's not rocket science that Hall will not be selected on that wing this week. Think the word "dropped" may be out of context. Agar has had to reshuffle after a player has returned from injury.

Are we saying the centres have been sufficiently poor to warrant being replaced by Hall? With the strength in depth we keep hearing about, players will be replaced most weeks I should have thought, depending on the opposition strengths.

Are we going to flap and call "dropped" every time this happens? This board's going to get tiresome, if so.

We have some strength in depth in the forwards, undoubtedly, with Moa, Burnett and Washy in the stands. But not in the backs. 1 winger, Yeaman, a 19 year old centre given the winger's shirt and 3 centre/utility players who probably overall bring the same net contribution to the team but none of whom are the real deal as a top class SL centre.

Pretty fair assessment. Hall hasn't been outstanding when at centre. Whiting was unlucky to lose his starting place the other week after his MOM effort. Agree with another poster that having a settled back line can only help the players but this change is a return from injury and so is understandable in that context.

The issue isn't Caderwood replacing Hall. The issue is a utility player being preferred to a centre. It suggests that Agar has a certain set of priorities for the centre position that don't align with Hall's strengths, hence my comment about Hall being better off elsewhere.

Unfortunate for Hall, he is one of our best attacking options, however against Wigan he was hopelessly exposed by a lack of sliding defense, he simply stood no chance. My biggest worry against Wigan was the way in which our pack was dominated, Dowes was hopeless, he was dominated in nearly every collision, Cusack was ineffective, Radford was a penalty machine, and o'meley was fighting a loosing battle. Definately time for a change in the pack, Moa in for Dowes for me.

Looking at the stats, and taking them with a pinch of salt, Dowes and Cusack are by far out least effective forwards, Cusack makes the fewest metres per carry, at less than 6, as expected Lauaki (9.09) and O'meley (7.69) top the list, in 3rd place is Moa with 7.38.

To add to that Dowes has missed 10 tackles and made 142, thats a miss every 14.2 tackles, fitz tops this list by a street mile with 265 tackles and only 5 misses (53 tackles/miss), Radford is next with 37 tackles per miss, then Yak with 21. In terms of penalties, Radford has conceded the most, at 4 in 5 games, fitz 5 in 6 but with many more mins, and manu with 4 in 6 games.

Suffice to say that in terms of going forward, Dowes and Yak are bottom of the pile, however, Yak can and does at least find he knees and elbows and get a good, quick PoTB. Added to the style of play, means that we make few metres, when Yak and Dowes are on, and we struggle to dominate teams. Moa in!!!

Agar plays Hall at full back in a really poor team and then drops him and sends him out on loan when there were far worse players than him. Hall plays on the wing and doesn't play well, but is no worse than other players and has looked one of our best attacking backs this season and then gets the chop when poorer players survive. Scapegoat.

As far as I'm concerned Whiting is primarily a centre too. He just happens to be able to step up successfully to other positions too. He has different strengths to Hall, but to infer that Whiting must always be first to lose his centre place simply because he adds to the squad in other positions if necessary is wrong.

I like Hall, btw. Just don't think he is a scapegoat on this occasion.

For some of the second half tries I would agree and have said as much. His defending of a couple of the first half tries was amateurish. Not saying I agree with Agar but the level of his defence was not good. I have said elsewhere he wasn't the only culprit.

Whiting should play whenever he is fit all this talk of utility is misleading, Whiting is a centre first and foremost. As for Hall I'd put him on the bench, he'd be far more use than Houghton but teams don't like to put backs on the bench anymore.

I haven't actually used the word 'scapegoat' as I'm not convinced that it's appropriate. This is the first time that Agar has had to choose between Whiting and Hall at centre, and I think it's more likely to be evidence of the way he prefers the centre to operate rather than a specific response to Friday. I find it disappointing but not surprising.

Whiting for me is a fine player, but primarily a Loose/Second Row forward who can fill in well in other positions, including centre. That's largely down to my preference for a centre to be a potent attacking threat rather than a more defence-oriented role, and I appreciate that others feel differently.

For me this is further evidence that Hall will never feature prominently in Agar's plans as his style simply does not fit the way Agar likes his centres to play. For his own sake, Hall should now be looking for alternative employment somewhere where he will get regular first team games in the position where he excels. I think we'll be the poorer for his loss, but if we're not going to use him anyway then there's not much point in him hanging around.

Lets get it right, out of position or not Hall had a poor game on Friday.

As far as this week goes, I would rather go for Hall at centre but Whiting started the season really well there and when he had to move to fullback then Hall scored a belting try at centre. So it's probably even between them in the centres this season so Agar has a choice of the two to make and has gone with Whiting. I don't have a problem with it as such but it's a choice of attack v defence. Hall is the better attacking option and Whiting is the better defensive one.

Whiting bombed a chance to put us level on Friday and his defence was very very suspect too. He played very poorly against Celtic and bombed 2 chances there. He's too slow to be a centre and his defence in the last 2 seasons hasn't been great either.

Poor decison IMO, looking at the Bradford centres of Nero and Sykes, Hall would have been perfect against them, his pace and footwork could have caused all kind of problems, they arent very good goign forward either so defence shouldnt have been a problem, not that Halls defence has been while playing at centre.

I also expect Moa not to play, think Agar is playing safe, which i dont like, too much like last season IMO.

Time will see (long term not short) if he has made the wrong decison.

I cant see Hall at Hull next year, and I wouldn't blame him, even if he went to Rovers.

If he leaves we need to look to sign a Winger and play Briscoe at centre next year.