Quote: Big Dave T "If you need to take the risks to meet your targets then it would be an option to take the risk here. However, if your target is attainable in a more safe and risk averse way that should be the way to go, and thats whay Agar does.
Lets say we win 20-10 with G Horne playing, and we win 26-16 with Hall playing, but there is more chance with Hall in the team of tackles being missed and the 26-16 being reversed than when G Horne plays, why wouldnt you take the safer 2 points?'"
From that response it seems you think that 2 points against Celtic Crusaders is almost the only target (short termist, surely?), and that Hall's inclusion could jeopardise that. Personally I want us to become and stay the best team in SL over the next few years, and I think developing talents such as Hall is a key component for that to happen. The way to do that is for them to play games, and the best games for them to do so are those we should be most confident of winning so as to put less pressure on them, then we can steadily increase their involvement from there.
And I'll say again, if including Hall against Celtic Crusaders could be the difference between winning and losing, we have huge problems. Here's extra for clarity: 2 points against Celtic Crusaders for a team aiming for the top 4 should be safe even with a few team changes, so long as we have the right attitude and application. With that in mind, we should be looking at what else we can get out of the game as well (ie player development).
