Brilliant! You actually agree he's played there now?? It's just that earlier you posted that no coach has ever considered him there, and he is totally inexperienced in that position!

If I had posted as many factually inaccurate claims as you have done today, I would be more than happy to admit my lack of knowledge on this subject!

Now you're just obstinately applying a very selective measurement of 'realistically considered'. By your new method we also never 'realistically considered' playing him at stand-off despite signing him as one and handing him the 6 shirt at one point.

Nor, I suppose, did we consider Lupton for scrum half despite giving him the 7 shirt ahead of Danny Brough and starting the 2005 season with him in preference? And Yeaman wasn't 'realistically considered' for the back row either?

If a player is given a significant opportunity to play in a position and potentially claim it for himself, that is as realistic a consideration as you're going to get. Whether or not the coach is then convinced by them and they subsequently take that chance is an entirely different matter.

Whiting was groomed for the pack for second row and loose. Many were clamouring for him to be played at loose when Radford was continually played there.

He did bulk up at one point too, then the catastrophic leg injury occured. No need for him in the pack now, though, so no point in going through the laborious bulk-up proceedure again when we've got much more pressing needs for back cover.

All testiment to Whiting's all-round prowess, though. I love him.

He is inexperienced in the pack. 10 games there in 7 years and 1 in the last 5 years doesn't even qualify him as vaguely experienced.
You want to say he should play there and we shouldn't have signed Westerman then go ahead, but the facts back up my opinion more than yours.

Whiting was signed as a 6 and then rarely featured there, why? Because he wasn't good enough or fast enough. The idea was then played with that he could be a 13, if that was a realistic idea he'd have been given the chance when Smith was finished, but someone else was played there instead. Why? Because again, he wasn't good enough in the role. He's found his role, utility back, and a damn good one he is too. But let's not kid ourselves into believing he's a great ball handler, because he ain't.

The fact is Whiting's try record as a utility is pretty good at 42 from 136. As a LF it's excellent at 5 from 9. It is of considerable regret that the numpties that we have had in charge have used Whiting's utility for their "greater good" rather than giving the guy a chance in a position that he looks to have all of the attributes for. He is a pivotal, tall , rangey player with a brain but lacks pace , ie , a loose forward. Westerman has done nothing yet. He looks like a loose forward lets hope he isn't 26 and playing second row , stand off , centre , prop .........because we haven't signed players in those positions , they're injured , not good enough etc cos then , once again we'll never actually know.

Rich Whiting is a utility back at Hull FC. Craig Fitzgibbon is a grafting loose forward who regularly attracts not only fantastic Opta stats, but more importantly glowing opposition fans' references to his unbelievable work rate in attack and defence. Joe Westerman is a rookie ball playing loose forward currently plying his trade as a wide running second rower and fill-in stand off half.

If you take Whiting out of the squad you are left with a massive void in several back positions in terms of quality and reliability.

If you take Craig Fitzgibbon out of the squad you lose a phenomenal work rate circa 60 tackles per game which NO ONE in the current squad can possibly cover. It has ALWAYS been the case that our team benefits from a no nonsense up and down player like Fitz - a player who has all the accolades under the sun but more importantly enjoys the informed opposition coach/fan praise as a result of his endeavours.

Joe Westerman is a promising ball playing second row/loose with lots still to prove who has shown some glimpses of attacking prowess however if you take Joe out of the current squad the team is not massively weakened by it.

In summary Whiting is the best utility back, Fitz is the irreplaceable grafter, and Westy is the young gun who does good and bad and will grow into the role left by others in the next two seasons,

Why do you think that our attack has been woeful in the past 4 years?
We need to play a proper 13 as a pivot, and we need to have a fullback who is first and foremost, a fullback.

I said at the time, that Whiting had all of the attributes to be a replacement for Cooke. Sadly, we have never got to see if we would have been correct or not.

What is wrong with you? How many times are you going to make up things I said? I NEVER said we shouldn't have signed Westerman. It is actually my personal belief that we should spell Westerman at 13 with Whiting. As I'm sure you'll know, Westerman's last season as Castleford saw him only selected in the second row, does that mean Matterson "never considered him a loose forward"?

And how can the facts back up your opinion, when so far in this exchange you have been proven incorrect on numerous occasions? I'm sure you'll now make up something else I said and counter it with some banal statement that again, is factually incorrect.

The facts that he's only played a handful of games as a 13 and has never played there regularly seem to back up my opinion that he isn't a 13. Is that so hard for you to understand?

Yes, the fact our attack has been woeful over the last few years is because Whiting wasn't played at 13. Do you honestly believe we'd of faired much better with Whiting or Washbrook at LF? We'd have been run ragged down the middle.
How hard is it to understand that we play with 1,6 & 7 as our pivots. If you want to watch a team that employs 6,7 & 13 as pivots, maybe you could go support Rovers, i'm sure their fans will fill you with stories of their try scoring exploits this year, and their St. George like defence through the middle.

This is a simply fact to understand. It's precisely what we do. It also somehow coincides with a huge downturn in fortune, and a miserable team to watch at times.
I would prefer to watch the team of 2004-2006 with Pivots at 6, 7 and 13 and a proper fullback. Thanks for your input and your incredible success at coming accross as a sanctamonius (and IMO) fool.

Out of interest, how long have you been watching Hull?

What's hard to understand is how you ignore every point you've been proved wrong on, and just move on to another point. Also, if you count all the games he came off the bench to play 13, it's not a handful of games at all. In fact, the fact that he was coming on and playing 13 weekly off the bench at one point, would suggest he has played there regularly. Just because you don't remember seeing him play there/Didn't support Hull back then, doesn't mean it didn't happen! As I've pointed out before, I have seen Whiting play very well at loose forward!

I'll let you spout your vitriolic drivel in reply and leave it at that. you're far too deluded to waste any more of my morning on.

Why would we have been run ragged through the middle? It never did us any harm when we had smith, Chester or Washbrook at 13(03-07). We scored more points and I reckon we conceded less aswell. It hasn't done Leeds any harm over the past 10 years having sinfield at 13, who is a ball player. The simple fact is that our attack has gone down hill since Cooke left, and until we replace (properly) him having a ball playing 13 or a grafting 13 will make no difference.

Bless ya.