He got a new contract for this season from the 'open-eyed' folk who run our club. They obviously see what he brings to the squad.

So, the question remains, if they people who run our club are so open-eyed, will you accept it's the right decision if they renew his contract for next year?

I dont have an issue with honest appraisal but when you stick your head above the trench you have to be willing and man enough to have it shot off by those who do not agree ... which he is not good at !
also why is it if others in this forum disagree thay are ridiculed??

forum is for all views, some we agree with some we do not but all relevant and all irrelevant as the only view that counts at any point is Agars!! we just speculate on here but in that speculation has to be balance , not just standees view however honest or straight to the point you may think it is.

shhhh they dont like it you know!!

His reading of the game is much better than most. It's a strength. Of course every player should be able to read the game, just like every player should be able to pass, tackle, and run. But every player isn't equal at all of those things. One of Whiting's major strengths is that he reads the game very well, whilst Calderwood's is that he can run very fast, Long's is that he is a good playmaker, Lauaki's is that he is a nasty bas*ard etc etc.

Whiting has numerous other strengths - not least his utility value - and has only one real weakness: lack of pace.

And my point is that in our squad Whiting has stood out as a player who reads the game and makes intelligent plays. Now that might say more about the other players than it does Whiting, but it has nonetheless made him a valuable member of the squad over the last several seasons. Whether it's been a 'game breaker' or not is a little subjective, but I can recall plenty of occasions where his knack of being in the right place at the right time has resulted in a try scored or saved.

I do actually agree that it's a shame he doesn't have the pace to better exploit this talent, but that doesn't entirely eliminate the benefit it brings to the team as a whole.


I'm not arguing for him to be in the starting 13, or even regularly in the 17 assuming everyone is fit. I think he somewhat falls between two stools physically (too slow for a back, too small for a forward) which has been a contributory factor to him not tying down a single position. However, as a utility player who can cover positions in both the backs and forwards I think he is good value as a squad player to cover our inevitable injuries.


Given the little we know about the wage structure at FC and it's emphasis on International honours to enhance salary, it's doubtful that he's being paid a huge sum. I'd expect him to be on a similar wage to other squad players at other clubs with his experience.


But would leave us short of our one proven utility player in case of injuries. Given our recent history I'd be less than sanguine about doing that TBH.

You seriously need to grow up. you also need to have a look back to page 3 of this thread to see my initial response.



Experiance of these forums leads to the need for such responses at times, this being a relevant time judging by your childish attempts to belittle someone. The provocation was your illogic theory that because Paul Cooke didn't have any pace, it was justification for the selection of Whiting



As pointed out in my reply to Kosh, it really isn't a bull argument. If his only real selling point is reading the game, that should come as a minimum attribute to any SL player. Strangely few seem to have identified Richards biggest plus point, his defence.

The successful sides in SL have very few utility players. Probably the reason they do so well. We however are overflowing with them. Even when the likes of Lee and G Horne leave we have utilities as replacements. Hopefully they will be of a better quality. Tansey appears to be just that and hopefully he will make the No1 shirt his own. Turner on the otherhand appears to be a like for like replacement for G Horne (just one with more speed and potential.)

Richard has played for England.

So had Crooke, but that apparently doesn't count as far as the club is concerned. It has to be the 'proper' international side.

Exactly right, i don't think there is a need for utility players nowadays. As a club we've suffered from having too many of these and people were calling for more specialist players. I would rather have a natural centre, SO, 2nd row as backup with youngsters then backing that up.
there is also the point that given Whiting has worked with 4 coaches at our club and not one has played him 13 or 2nd row for any amount of time speaks volumes for me, but hey maybe some posters are better coaches!

Says the one who resorts to throwing around childish insults.




There's never a need for you to respond like you did without any provocation whatsoever. Like I said, it says a lot about you.



If you are referring to my last post to you, I was merely searching for a reason why someone would post like that - looking for which particular chip your shoulder is harbouring.



No. My theory was that Paul Cooke has no pace, but makes up for it in other areas. As does Whiting.



No, it really is a bull argument. Garry Schofield? What nonsense.

Also, read my previous reply. He is a better reader of the game than most. And no, it's not his only selling point, but it's something he does particularly well.



Much of which is made possible by the effectiveness with which he reads the game.



Overflowing? Really?

Tansey, as far as I'm aware, was bought as a full back and will be used as such. Even if Whiting and Turner both fall into the 'utility' bracket, it's hardly the case that we're 'overflowing' with them.

It does. Most of the time he's either been injured or filling in elsewhere.



Indeed. Perhaps some know better than the coaches who have extended his contract.

I can't accept that as an argument
2004 = 26 apps
2005 = 19 apps
2006 = 20 apps
2007 = 15 apps
2008 = 2 apps (horrific injury)
2009 = 18 apps
Ample time to make a spot his own IMO.


Not at all, why can't it be that 4 coaches that have worked with him on a daily basis don't think he's right for 13?

Not if he was needed to cover injuries elsewhere.



It could be. I just don't think it is.

Edit: My main problem with this argument is that people (not you, particularly) say that Whiting can't be suited to the 13 role as he hasn't played there under a succession of coaches and they must know best. Those same people then go on to say that we have too many utility players, he's not fast enough, not top 4 material etc etc, yet forget the fact that those coaches who know so much have valued him (and his utility value) enough to keep him on.

Considering he has been first choice right centre almost since 2004 (sometimes there has been no other option to free him up to play elsewhere), its a bit hard for him to have claimed the 13 shirt. Apart from getting injure 07/08 which let G Horne in. Although in 05 played quite a few at 13 www.slstats.org/p485/Richard%20Whiting.html

Considering he has been first choice right centre almost since 2004 (sometimes there has been no other option to free him up to play elsewhere), its a bit hard for him to have claimed the 13 shirt. Apart from getting injure 07/08 which let G Horne in. Although in 05 played quite a few at 13 www.slstats.org/p485/Richard%20Whiting.html

For 4 consecutive years? surely not!

I'm not against keeping him for his utility value, just think that there are other players who will get their chance before him (rightly or wrongly). At this stage in his career he should have a specific position, he doesn't really. Also at this stage in his career he should be looking for a better contract and will probably get one at salford/celtic or them sort of teams but IMO he won't get it at Hull and that's why i think Rich and Hull will part company.

Quote ="Hutchie"Considering he has been first choice right centre almost since 2004 (sometimes there has been no other option to free him up to play elsewhere), its a bit hard for him to have claimed the 13 shirt. Apart from getting injure 07/08 which let G Horne in. Although in 05 played quite a few at 13 www.slstats.org/p485/Richard%20Whiting.html'" That link's a tad unfair labelling him as 'somewhat injury prone'. Two broken bones account for the majority of the time he's spent injured.

Quote ="Hutchie"Considering he has been first choice right centre almost since 2004 (sometimes there has been no other option to free him up to play elsewhere), its a bit hard for him to have claimed the 13 shirt. Apart from getting injure 07/08 which let G Horne in. Although in 05 played quite a few at 13 www.slstats.org/p485/Richard%20Whiting.html'" That link's a tad unfair labelling him as 'somewhat injury prone'. Two broken bones account for the majority of the time he's spent injured.

Yes, you're right. We've had a really good time with injuries the last 4 years. Hardly any, in fact.



I don't think they will. I think he has bags of ability and would love to see him as first choice 13. I can see the argument for Washbrook being there above him, but he's so valuable to the squad that I reckon he'll stay around without cementing a regular place. I would be more than happy for him to play anywhere other than prop or wing in the event of injury and do pretty good job. There aren't too many players you can say that about.

I was thinking more 2004-2007.


But if he enters into negotiations with Hull and asks for a bit more money to do what he's doing now then i don't think he's good enough value, if he's happy to pick up a "utility" wage then i'm more than happy to see him stay, he will always give 100% but he's solid not spectacular, which is the point.

As a matter of interest, how much is he earning now? And how much extra would push him into the 'not good value' bracket? Come to that, how much is a 'utility' wage?

TIA

I think this 'solid, not spectacular' tag is a little unfair to Whiting. He does some very clever things in attack and defends very well. He doesn't go the length of the pitch, granted, but then, who does? He'll never be a Berrigan, a Long, or a Fitzgibbon, but he's among the better half of SL players, in my opinion.

You mean the three seasons where he was covering right centre most games as our first choice(s) was(were) constantly missing through injury?

And also, why should a 'utility' wage be lower than someone playing only one position?

No 2004-2007 is 4 seasons. So by that he's mainly a centre then surely?

His new contract is for 32000 per year with 7% image rights! How the hell should i know, but i would be disappointed to learn that he earned anymore than Graham Horne did.

I didn't say they should.