If Horne is fit, it might be worth starting him at FB, then trying out a Tansey/Whiting combo in the halves.

Both Horne and Washy were awful, a number of times we made the wrong play, specially the kick into the corner when we had Hall and Whiting on the outside of Horne. They also made a habit of trying to step the defender, but simply getting caught with the ball. We have some devastating back row forwards who, when given good service will do real damage, but instead the halves decided time and time again to take it up themselves, and got hammered with the ball time and time again.

As for half back options, I would put Tansey in there, who at least has some spark with the ball, and along side him I would probably lump for Turner to play 6. This would mean we'd need to find a full back, and that would probably have to be Craig Hall, with Calderwood being brought back onto the wing

totally agree that tansey should play @ 7 when sean long is injured (which could easily be roughly 1/3 of the season)

if horne doesn't come good at stand-off then i'd put him to full-back and give him a last chance, otherwise i'd be reconsidering whether to renew his contract or not

Do you not recall last season..

Whiting to f/back

I do indeed, I think he probably had one bad game at Full back after which he was dropped, I thought Hall was fairly comfortable sweeping up on the wing on sunday. Whiting is an option at Full back, but lacks any sort of pace. Irrespective of who ends up playing there, the main cause of concern is getting someone with a clue into the Halves

He was bad in every game he played at FB and his confidence was wrecked as a result. Putting him back in that position would rank alongside some of the all time most stupid coaching decisions.

No Hall is not a f/back, he was under pressure and lost his confidence, I would sooner see Moa at f/back

I can't understand why so many people expect Washbrook to step in, in his first game of the year, and be superb. It take a game or two to find the teams rhythm. Even Orford looked off his game the first couple of matches. I seem to remember a few games were Washy has done a good job at 6, Murrayfield last year springs to mind. I hope that Washy is given another chance, the last thing I want to see is the whole team being switched around every time we pick up an injury. Rather than Tansey being moved from a position he really wants to play and make his own, attacking play can be adapted slightly so that he charms into the line more often at first receiver. That still allows Horne/Washbrook/Long to fight it out for the halfback spots.

But the Horne/Washy combination never worked last season did it?

Actually his first game (or maybe two) was pretty good. Things went rapidly downhill from there, however. I'm a big fan of Hall but I wouldn't contemplate putting him back in at FB - too big a risk.

Not IMO, but it seems that some are willing to give it another go - including Agar.

I find it quite worrying that some people have forgotten that Horne/Washbrook are a poor pairing, Horne isn't a top class player, never really has been.

It's no surprise to me that we struggle when our 7 isn't playing, it's been like that for the last 5 years!

I know, bit of a worry that

In hindsight it could of been a case of too many chiefs. Tansey would be the logical choice for me did well when asked to step up last year.

OK - my 2p worth...

Tansey has to move to 7. I know it's not ideal to move him from a position where he's playing so well and where he wants to play, but he's the only player we have with anything like the skills and personality to play there.

My order of preference for players to drop in at 6 alongside him would be Whiting, Hall, Turner. I've ruled out Horne as I don't think he's fit and Washy as he isn't a 6. The problem is that Whiting will need to move to FB (I really don't think we have any other decent options) leaving Hall and Turner. Hall edges it for me as he has the right skills, is most dangerous ball in hand, and has played well there before. Turner OTOH seems to be a better bet at centre judging on the pre-season games.

Far from ideal, and I'll probably change my mind a few times, but ATM that's the best I can come up with.

I have changed my mind 5 times and it is only Monday



Turner 6 for me, stronger defence.

Hall's defence looked fine yesterday.



Turner didn't get glowing reports from his stint in the halves against Sheffield, so that's why I've put him at centre where he played well against Rovers. I just feel that throwing him in at 6 while we're having a mini crisis might not be his best introduction to the role.

horne and turner halfbacks. leave tansey at fullback but he will act as a halfback in attack. washy at halfback NO. whiting and hall again NO.

wasn't it Tansey and Washy that played against quins back end of last season. I'd check on FC website but no ones put 50p in the meter yet

TBF to Turner is was his first run out(as a h/back)...Barry Mac said on TV in his opinion Turner was the bigger loss to Salford than Myler


The kid won awards 2006/7..played h/back for G/B under 20s, he was brought in as a utility player to cover centre and h/backs, he has to be broken in and Quins at home maybe the place to do it. Sheffield was his first run out with our team, players missing etc, he is worth a punt imo

How many times was they in the halves together last season?
I seem to remember a certain Mr. Thorman playing most weeks.

It's an option I wouldn't be dead set against. I didn't see the Sheffield game so am relying on second-hand reports of how he did, whereas I've seen Hall play SO to a good standard.

If Turner went to SO and Hall to centre I wouldn't be too worried TBH. It would almost have to be a better option than Horne and Washy.

Oh I agree Hall's defence has improved

If Horne plays, it has to be at SO. Personally, I wouldn't have him in the 17 but continuing to use him at SH is total madness ! We keep hearing RA talk about the "strength" of our squad so we must have a better option at halfback than Washbrook/Horne. Surely ??