[Kosh]

: Sun Apr 05, 2009 11:00 am  

Rock God X wrote:

Like Sam Moa?

I was thinking more of the other players mentioned TBH, like resting Dowes, Cusack and Berrigan.

The Moa situation annoys me a great deal. If Agar thinks he's fit enough to play then he has to do more than one 10 minute spell in the 2nd half. If not, don't play him.

That's more poor team/bench selection than resting key players TBH.

: Sun Apr 05, 2009 11:03 am  

Kosh wrote:

I was thinking more of the other players mentioned TBH, like resting Dowes, Cusack and Berrigan.

The Moa situation annoys me a great deal. If Agar thinks he's fit enough to play then he has to do more than one 10 minute spell in the 2nd half. If not, don't play him.

That's more poor team/bench selection than resting key players TBH.

Tell me about it. Like I said on another thread, how radical would it be to play four props and rotate them in 20 minute spells? And perhaps we coud even stretch to a recognised loose forward.

: Sun Apr 05, 2009 11:07 am  

Kosh wrote:

I was thinking more of the other players mentioned TBH, like resting Dowes, Cusack and Berrigan.

The Moa situation annoys me a great deal. If Agar thinks he's fit enough to play then he has to do more than one 10 minute spell in the 2nd half. If not, don't play him.

That's more poor team/bench selection than resting key players TBH.

That's my main concern, if we are playing Washy at L/F then why not move Radders up to starting prop with Dowes or Cusack and have either of those two on the bench with any of Maloney (great opportunity to see him) King, or even have Thackray as the 2nd row rotation.
That way we are giving vital game time to key players in a game that we should manage to control and win handsomely.

: Sun Apr 05, 2009 11:14 am  

B0NES wrote:

Lee
Tony
Thorman
Cusack
G. Horne
Whiting
Burnett
Maloney
Moa
Thackray
All out of contract at the end of this season, Who goes , Who stays?

Lee - go (should have gone before now)
Tony - go
Thorman - stay as cover for half backs/utility value
Byrne - go
Cusack - go
G Horne - stay as cheap utility cover
Whiting - stay
Burnett - stay
Maloney - ??
Moa - stay
Thackray - stay


I would also try to convince King and Radford to leave.

: Sun Apr 05, 2009 11:16 am  

thehullwhitestar wrote:

Lee - go (should have gone before now)
Tony - go
Thorman - stay as cover for half backs/utility value
Byrne - go
Cusack - go
G Horne - stay as cheap utility cover
Whiting - stay
Burnett - stay
Maloney - ??
Moa - stay
Thackray - stay


I would also try to convince King and Radford to leave.

If you get rid of Cusack and King, you'll need two decent props to replace them. Where will they come from?

[Kosh]

: Sun Apr 05, 2009 11:19 am  

Rock God X wrote:

Tell me about it. Like I said on another thread, how radical would it be to play four props and rotate them in 20 minute spells? And perhaps we coud even stretch to a recognised loose forward.

Couldn't agree more.

I'm desperately trying to give Agar a fair crack of the whip, but I'm afraid I just don't understand his selection and rotation policies.

: Sun Apr 05, 2009 11:24 am  

Rock God X wrote:

If you get rid of Cusack and King, you'll need two decent props to replace them. Where will they come from?

One big top drawer rough-arse prop would be fine to go with Dowes, Hame, Moa, Thackray and Maloney. Maybe a Ryles type prop, I would be very happy with our front row and we would probably have a little left over.

The rest would go towards strengthening other areas.

Let's face it, for next season we will need a fullback, centre AND scrum half.

: Sun Apr 05, 2009 11:30 am  

Kosh wrote:

Couldn't agree more.

I'm desperately trying to give Agar a fair crack of the whip, but I'm afraid I just don't understand his selection and rotation policies.

as stated before he does have similarities with Sharp in this department.

: Sun Apr 05, 2009 11:34 am  

Kosh wrote:

Couldn't agree more.

I'm desperately trying to give Agar a fair crack of the whip, but I'm afraid I just don't understand his selection and rotation policies.

Agree 100%. I would love RA to be a real success but some of his team selection and especially the bench/rotation absolutely baffles me.

I'm no RL expert, but two hookers and a 10min prop as 3/4 of your bench is madness !!!

: Sun Apr 05, 2009 11:36 am  

thehullwhitestar wrote:

Agree 100%. I would love RA to be a real success but some of his team selection and especially the bench/rotation absolutely baffles me.

I'm no RL expert, but two hookers and a 10min prop as 3/4 of your bench is madness !!!

Where as we could have King,Thacks,Whiting,Manu..........id have Washy or whiting 13...other on bench.