Mcshane does add a kicking game from 9 which we have lacked. Obviously hes not the only reason but the widnes improvement in the 2nd half of the season coinsides with his loan period starting.

Cant see us going for McShane and his kicking game as you would have him on the field as long as poss.Him at 9 then where do you play Aiton 13 that would then push Washbrook elsewhere.Ellis has been good but the club were in the position of too many players for the same spot.Good luck Andy Ellis.

From what i have seen of him this year, his goal kicking is on a par with Issac John.

Im probably wrong, but i cant see us getting rid of Ellis and replacing him with McShane. I would think a utility player like Murrell who can play 9, 13, 6 would benefit the squad more, leaving Aiton, Wildie & Wood (in that order) for the regular hooking role.

I doubt we will get McShane as we have got rid of a good hooker and already have Aiton, Wildie and Wood so thats a non starter for me. Murrell if we did sign he would offer cover in various positions but hes linked with every SL team from 8th to 14th so we will have to see on that one.

I dont think Wildie will be leaving after reading the story on the Wildcats website it mentions the following.....
"Ellis returns to Rovers after a loan spell earlier this year. He made ten appearances in the red, white and blue in his single season at the club, finding opportunities limited due to the excellent form of Paul Aiton and Kyle Wood.

With that duo plus the highly regarded, homegrown Matty Wildie in the ranks for 2013, plus Ellis’ desire to play more regular rugby at this stage of his career, the Wildcats have allowed the hooker to join neighbours Featherstone on a two-year deal.

Wildie has gained valuable first team experience at Batley Bulldogs during this campaign as well as catching the eye as part of the under 20′s Academy that reached the play-offs, and the man who was part of the Wildcats under 18′s Academy Grand Final winning side in 2009 will compete with Aiton and Wood in the hooker role, an area where the Wildcats are packed full of quality."

I would take that to mean we are keeping Wildie and Agar has intent on using him next year along with Aiton and Wood.

Don't see any point at all in getting rid of Ellis and signing McShane. And Murrell isn't a hooker at any level. Guess we will just go with Aiton, Wood & Wildie. Washbrook can cover there in an emergency as he did for Hull.

I would rather have seen Ellis getting regular game time with us next season, I rated him, but based on how this season turned out i'll put my faith in Agar.

Is there anybody on the planet, apart from Agar, who believes that Ellis "had limited opportunities due to the excellent form of Kyle Wood".


I'm not sure even Agar believes that spin!
What about the 24 games where Wood was abysmal?

For me Aiton, Wood and Ellis are all up to the job for us, but is having 3 decent hookers a luxury we can afford? I have every faith in Matty Wilde stepping in when needed providing adequate cover. He played a lot of first team rugby in 2011 and I thought he had the potential to kick on. This year he should get his chance and I don’t think he’ll let us down. He must have impressed the coaching team enough to have faith in him as back up. Use the money to strengthen elsewhere.

Just to clarify, I'm not saying Murrell is a hooker but he can and has done in the past, a job if required. In a similar fashion to Danny Washbrook. This is a 4th choice hooker we are talking not a starter.

Far too reasonable for some people on here.

Got to be more to Ellis going than meets the eye. Hooker is a crucial position and Ellis proved that he was the best hooker at the club, he got our forwards on the front foot, his pass was fantastic ( like watching Brad Drew ) , he moved forward engaging defenders before passing, he gets passed the markers running straight and got us quick plays. He was the answer. Aiton is just not a hooker, his pass is slow, he just passes rather than moving forward and passing, he runs sideways, he is a great tackler but you need more than that from your hooker. We won games when Ellis played, our forwards looked good when Ellis played, Tim Smith looked great when Ellis played. Tim Smith was average playing with Aiton and our forward were often second best. Four hookers is to many to have in the squad, I would have played Ellis with Wildie as his back up, Wood would be my cover for injury. I just don`t know about Aiton , Impact back row sub.

At last belly someone who can put 2 and 2 and come up with 4.Andy was by far the best hooker at the club, and the play the ball area improved 100%
A BIG LOSS IN MY VIEW

What do you mean at last, there's a fair few people on this thread lamenting his departure.

I don't think this reflects too badly on Andy Ellis.
The club has a limited budget below the salary cap. Tough decisions have to be made to build the strongest squad possible within that budget.
Players are valued on their contribution in relation to cost.
I have no idea about individual salaries, but I would suggest Aiton and Ellis were on more than Wood and certainly Wildie.
So say Aiton and Ellis cost 3 salary cap points, Wood 2 and Wildie 1.
We need a starting hooker, replacement and back-up. What's the most efficient way of having this. Maybe fans would like Aiton, Ellis and Wood, but that would be 8 points and without injuries, one of them wouldn't play. As it is Aiton, Wood and Wildie would only be 6 points, leaving 2 points to be used elsewhere in the squad.
If other clubs have 100 salary cap points, we only have 80. If we use up points on back-up players, it reduces the amount spent on the first team squad. The loss of under 20s rugby will drastically reduce the number of back-up players.
To me the right combination is to have one established player, one almost there and one developing. Two established players would be a luxury for a club on limited salary cap. The decision then lies between Aiton or Ellis and that's down to coach's preference.
Good luck to Andy Ellis. He is a good SL standard 'hooker'. Suprising that he's gone to Fev, but they are very ambitious at the moment and maybe they made the best offer.

Agree, we can't have our cake and eat it, we want to strengthen in other areas so something had to give and Ellis being one of our top earners was it. People are moaning about this move but I bet there would be more moans if we couldn't sign a couple of props because we can't afford it.

Firstly let me say I'm very disappointed that Andy Ellis has left the Club and I think the Club has make a mistake. Having said that I'm struggling with the "all our improvement" is down to his inclusion. I have to agree Andy is an excellent hooker and his distribution is first class but let me ask a question. Its a genuine question and not intended to be contraversial.

We won our last 7 league games with Andy at hooker. That's 560 minutes of rugby. From my recollections Andy was substituted before half time in most of the games if not all of them. Therefore Andy played less than 50% of the 560 minutes but we managed to win those games therefore who was "distributing", "bringing on the forwards" when he was off.

Genuine question but I think there is more than one man responsible for the improvement.

Agree 100% with this!!! i thought he was doing a good job in the 2011 season with James Davy and Rinaldi and was suprised when we got wood to play the sub hooker as i thought this would be the season when we saw both James and Matty coming through more.

...agree 100% mate !!!

I agree with this. I too am sorry Ellis has gone but it is too easy to come to the conclusion that he, solely, was the catalyst for our improvement. On reflection I think that the Sykes/Smith combination, when it clicked was the reason for the improvement.
Anyway, we move on and I look forward to a couple of 'top' player announcements, just to keep the interest going-and the season tickets sales up! (and prices down of course).

I certainly don't think he was the reason for any upsurge in form, although he certainly contributed.
Where i do think he will be sorely missed is, from his distribution from the deck which was better than Aiton IMO and in defence where he was better than Wood, again IMO.
If Aiton improves his distribution (he will be truly one of the best players in SL) and if Wood improves his defence, Agar will be right and we will have two decent hookers, we cannot afford three, especially if we are looking at bringing some of the youngsters through top the first team.

All the above is your opinion - now I respect your opinion as you know. However it has proved in the past to be wrong as often as right, just like the rest of us.

Personally I feel Aiton is better than Ellis and with a much more organised side around him next year will prove me right, but hey.

This stuff about Ellis starting the revival is an utter myth IMHO.

All this is opinion and that's fair enough. However as I did earlier in the thread have to pull you up on the statement that Aiton isn't a hooker. Sorry Belly but that is a very poor comment and beneath you. If you think Ellis is better that's fine, but to destroy a players reputation in a position he has played most his career including at International level is a bit out of order.

Ellis played a solid part in, but was by no means the orchestrator of, our excellent winning streak; for that he has my gratitude and respect. He took his chance when the first choice (and better) hooker was injured and he did a good job.

It's a bit disappointing to see this 'face didn't fit' nonsense that some people are peddling though; if anyone genuinely believes that Agar would ditch a player who was needed purely out of vindictiveness, then they need to give their head a shake. He's ditched a player in a position we're overloaded in, to make funds available for improvements elsewhere. It's not personal - it's business!

I've stated my opinion on the situation earlier in this thread that our revival was a general improvement in the team rather than an individual.

I would have liked to have kept Andy and I think him rotating with Paul Aiton would have been dynamite but I think the reason to let him go was simple and certainly not sinister. My opinion is that it was not a case of his "face not fitting" but simple economics. Whilst off the field we have improved we are still not able to pay to full cap yet and we have a good hooker in Paul Aiton and back up in Kyle Wood and Mattie Wildie and so Andy was allowed to go to Feathersone as we simply could not afford him and Paul Aiton. The money saved will be chanelled into strengthening the team where it needs it the most - simple.

Best of luck to Andy, Featherstone have certainly got a good one but we have to look forward and wait and see who we sign.

I really can't understand the face doesn't fit comments.

I'm sure Agar isn't in this to make friends.
I'm sure if he didn't particularly like Tomkins or Roby, but they wanted to play for us, he would still play them. It's about winning not liking people.

Equally if the best player somehow doesn't fit the team dynamic, then sometimes they have to move on. Same in all working life. The team is everything.
That in this case includes having too many tools and not enough different types to be able to do the job.

Sorry for Ellis and glad he is sorted, but Agar is clearly trying to create the best team and this is how he sees it working, in both cost, skills and longevity.