We can have all the options we want with regards players positions, the simple fact is we have Richard Agar , a man who over the last season and a half has proved that he is not SL/NL coach material, in fact I'd say he'd be lucky to get a job as heach coach of an under 8's rl team, he is that poor. and before people jump down my throat for having a go, why don't you all make a list of the things he done right as a coach in the last season and a half, and all the things he's got wrong, and I'll bet you you'll struggle to the positives to outweigh the negatives. But don't worry, it's the sheep mentality, lead by Wolfie, saying everything will be alright on the night.

He's had long spells out injured under the last 4 coaches, and, when he's been fit, he's been used elsewhere (eg centre) because of his versatility. So, it doesn't tell us a great deal, no.



Now, expressing doubt that his workrate [imay[/i not be high enough to play in the pack is different from saying "his workrate isn't high enough to play in the pack". That's what I have a problem with.

As regards the 'options' we have there, I see the only two options as Washy and Whiting. If Washbrook is first choice and he gets injured, Whiting should be next in line, IMO.

Not agreeing or disagreeing with your point of view about Agar. But there seems to be far more people who would like to see the back of him on here than those that don't. Doesn't that make you the little woolly creature that goes BAA ?

Have you not been reading this board for the last several months or something? The vast majority don't feel that Agar is up to the job, so quite where you get the whole 'sheep' thing from is beyond me.

No he wont.

thank god for that, only 2 years after everyone else realised Radford at 13 doesn't work

Well it tells me that despite numerous chances none of the coaches have seen fit to lay him at 13. Even when we have performed poorly and had no pivots Whiting has still not got his shot, to me that says the coaches see something in training that makes them not want to play him there.

Semantics, you know what people are referring to about workrate, all of a sudden he would have to be making far more tackles and take far more hitups. Also he would be required to kick more often aswell as play a creative role. Not everyone with a brain and good hands are cut out for that level of work week in/out.

When Whiting was signed, he was signed from Featherstone as a stand Off. Whilst he's been at the club, who has been the starting 13's for each of the coaches , excluding Agar's love of Radders who has no creative ability whatsoever.

Radders and Tickle will both struggle to make the 17 imo. Ive no issue with Dowes and Cusack on the field to start off with, ive said it before, we've played some of our better rugby over the last couple of seasons when theyve put down the platform.

Although I see your point, with our pack I think we have to be agressive from the off with at least one of O'meley, Lauaki or even Moa starting in the front row. It should alternate every week also so we don't become predictable.
We would be easy to defend against with moa, lauaki, Manu and o'meley on at the same time as teams would just look to see them off and tire them out. A constant flow of impact must be better than it coming in one big wave?

Modern rugby shows that most games are tight for the first half of each half and then benches win games. I'd be really pleased if we played the tight pack for the first 20 and then brought on O'Meley, Moa, Lauaki/Mau, Houghton. Not many teams could cope with that kind of impact. The starting pack with Cusack, Dowes, Fitz, Manu/Laukai, Berro isnt too shabby. Think Cusack actually brings more impact to the side than he's given credit for too.