Right-o, wasn't sure whether the SL stats was all competitive games.

A few

And certianly more than "half" that is what was originally claimed/guessed.

I know the point Sebasteano is making regarding signing ageing players (Long/Fitz) Meley is a different story as he still has plenty of years in him. I was quite happy with the signing of Long but i always assumed we would be bringing in a understudy as well but it has not happened.
Fitz has definatley done well, but he is getting overworked because he can do the full 80. Long has been the biggest dissapointment of the 3 for me and not because of the injuries as i think we all expected him to be injured and miss a few games. I just expected us to click more with him on the pitch, yet we have seen just as many lacklustre performances were we look clueless in attack with him in the squad as we have without him.

The issue for me with Long was the anticipated impact he would have on tactics, even in training, our lack of attacking options should have been addressed by his arrival, he's either not getting involved or not being allowed to get involved.

]

With Agar's form in this area (seeing off two assistants), I think it's fair to assume it's the latter.

You can find statistics to back up almost any claim and other teams have had key players of varying ages out due to lengthy injuries:

Matt Orford (who we were chasing before we signed Long) - 12 appearances this season and wont play again
Rob Burrow - 14
Kyle Eastmond - 16

OK Orford is getting on a bit but Burrow and Eastmond can't be described as over the hill or has beens.

Do we know that for sure? Only, Moore never mentioned it. From everything I've heard about Agar, people say he's a really nice guy. I've not heard one person say otherwise. That description of him doesn't seem to fit with the picture of a man who won't listen to his assistants and dispenses with their services if they disagree with him.

Sharp - was definately a case of Agar spitting his dummy out.
Moore - only what I have heard from other people, so you may well be right.

Definitely? How so? You witnessed the 'dummy spit' and all the events leading up to it first hand?



All I know is what I've read in the press. I just think it's important not to make sweeping statements about a person's professional interactions unless you have first hand knowledge of the situation.

All fair enough, but when in a 2 1/2 year tenure a head coach has seen off two assistants (both of whom have far more knowledge and experience of the top level of the game than himself) then its pretty clear to me what that is most likely to infer. Of course it may not be the case, but in the overall picture of Agar's time at the club it certainly fits.

I know someone who was party to the conversation with James Rule, that's good enough for me.

Moore said he left for 'personal reasons'. We have no reason to suspect that this is not true. The situation between Agar and Sharp may just have been down to a clash of personalities. It's impossible to say that either of them were to blame for Sharp's departure without full knowledge of their relationship. It's easy to jump to conclusions based on limited evidence, I think it's far healthier to reserve judgement on things like this until you're in possession of all the facts.

I think you're mistaken, people were delighted we won the derby but I don't recall anyone (except yourself, the Expro and one or two others) getting carried away that we were an excellent side all of a sudden. Do you honestly think it's likely that the views expressed on the board are the polar opposite to what most fans are thinking?

Your opinion changes like the weather usually but I guess you have to stick to the 'Expro-Lite' attitude now after claiming after the derby that you are confident that we will win silverwear under Agar