On merit, Washbrook should play before Turner. My worry is and it's a huge worry, that whenever Horne and Washy play together in the halves we create very little.

Why not go for it and play whiting at 6?

I think that Washbrook has had enough times to prove himself at stand-off and has failed to impress. Granted, Turner's no Long but I think he's got a smarter game than Washbrook. I'd prefer Turner or Tansey at half-back assuming Long isn't playing.

Just a question though: has Washbrook ever played at centre? If not then it might be worth giving him a try. Obviously with Hall and Yeaman both fit then that won't happen but he can't do much worse than he's done as a half.

He played there in France IIRC after we had suffered injuries. He's a loose forward with better than average skills, it's just that in this day and age loose forwards are just another prop.
Turner for me has a minimal skillset.

Spot on regarding both points for me. Not sure its this day and age though that means a 13 is another prop or simply Agars tactics. Leeds etc have ball playing 13 but that doesnt suit or up the jumper style.

It's quite ironic that the top teams have a quality ball playing individual at loose man: St's = Wilkin, Rhino's = Sinfield, Wigan = O'Loughlin. Washbrook has a place in modern day Rugby League, I just don't think it's at Hull Fc.

Maybe O'Loughlin is just very good..?

No maybe about it, he is very good. But thats why ive said if Washy played 13 and got 6 assists and not 12 like O'Loughlin it would still make us a better team.

I honestly think this is where we are suffering; our defence always seems to be stretched, we always seem to be predictable. For me this is due to having a 'traditional' floating loose man.

Washy has the defensive workrate and stength to play 80 mins at 13 too. Maybe Agar should think about playing him there and using Fitz for 60 mins in the 2nd row.

*Edit*

]

I knew what you meant.