Of course it won't. Cooke leaving fooked us up because he was our leader and chief playmaker, the position he played was irrelevant. Unless you're saying Whiting should be our chief playmaker?

He's not good enough for 13 mate, it's as simple as that. The fact he hasn't played there for years just proves my point.

How we played in 08 and 09 didn't really matter, the personell trying to implement were absolute garbage or constantly injured.
No surprise then, that we have genuine halfback cover this year, which has coincided with an upturn in performances and points scored.

When I reach your levels of idiocy, it's then that i'll start to worry, thanks.

i love whiting but i will say it again his best asset as a player is his quality utility value which for me makes him the best utility player in super league and a very important part of our team but for me he would be a step down from fitz playing 13 or westy so leave whiting as he is. perosnally i cant see westy playing 13 next year even if fitz goes he had a perfect oppitunity to play westy there against widnes but choose to play ticks there instead and that how i could see things been like next year.

Must be a reason none of the coaches have really seen him as a loose forward

Again, you make a bunch of points that bear no relevance to the debate you think you're engaging in. Do you not read the posts you quote, or do you simply not comprehend what people are saying?

Whiting has been considered for the loose forward role, as evidenced by being asked to bulk up and then tried there for a couple of pre-seasons and also several SL games. That it turns out he's not carried on there does not alter that fact. There's a difference between being considered and tried for a position, and being suitable for it. You need to get your head around that if you're going to keep trying to debate it.

What you droning on about now? Do you honestly think he's been seriously tried at LF? He hasn't, and 10 games there in 7 years proves that. I also don't think he has the physique to do it week in week out. He's not suitable for that role in our team. You reckon you can just about understand that?

Thats your opinoin though isnt it...and other peoples opinions are that he could play there and had played there,sperodically yes,but he has played there and handled the work-load.....The fact that previous coaches did look and plan for him being in the pack kind of backs up that they did see him as a back-rower but for serious injury and needs must elsewhere,this has never happend......As for Westerman...we wont really know what he is like until he gets a shot at 13...still begs why when we have a out and out 13 in Washy???

I guess the point is none of our previous coaches have seen him as good enough to play 13 on a regular basis and imo they are probably right.

How about serious injury stopping it......and imo he has 13 wrote all over him.

Once he has come back he has been playing well again but still no coach wanted him as a regular 13. He has good skills with his hands and feet but he does not have the physicallity to play a modern 13 position imo.

Thats it though Paul...the modern 13...i like a ball-handling 13 but this has gone out of the game now.

Great play from Westerman for the Gleeson try, showing what he is capable of.

Only taken him 16 rounds to make a contribution, another cracking Agar signing...

not all Joe's fault though, why we signed a promising no13 and play him in the 2nd row is anyone's guess.

Sounded like he had a good game.