The only thing I agree with is that Ganson didn't cost us the game.

It was an even game for around 65mins IMO. The fact we had no halfbacks for the majority of the game and the fatigue factor of backing up from the derby cost us the game IMO.
Also Reece Lyne would not have been the answer.

The referee gave a penalty on our own line when we were in possession (instead of penalising Wire for messing about on the player) followed up two tackles later with another penalty for interference (the only penalty all match that I can recall for that offence) - that handed Warrington a try on a plate to bring the scores level. There were other incidents but that one just seemed phoney to me and it was a turning point. I laughed at the end when the Warrington crowd were counting down to the hooter - six of those seconds they were laying on a tackled player - I thought they were feeling sorry for us and trying to let Ganson know he should be doing something about it.

You pay good money to watch a clash between two good teams and he can't help but take centre stage. Neither team needed a piggy-back.

I agree with that and thought that although wire are a great team Ganson let them get away with murder. we did have momentum and had we had a leader we could have capitalised on it.

I agree he would have been eaten alive by wire.

At last someone who watches the game with eyes wide open.

Ganson missed several forward passes both ways.

Gansons penalty against Yeaman was correct. The rules changed this season so that dragging a player into touch is not allowed. That we have been pinged for this already this season indicated to me that either the coach has not reiterrated this rule in training or that Yeaman is too think to remember what he is told.

A bigger crime on that phase of play was once the penalty had been given there were serveral players (including last years captain) with head down walking with there back to the ball. Understandably the player with the ball takes a quick tap and scoots past last years captain.

We never looked like scoring in the second half.

We must have had the slowest back division in SL history today.

The board have just given a 2 year extention to a clueless coach

We continue to play the likes of Yeaman (no pace, can't pass, no step, all he offers is good defence), Radford (plod plod) Dowes (see Radford). Whilst having no real attacking game plan.

Then you get fans applauding and a coach saying "the lads gave 100% effort and commitment". Well thats the minimum at this level. What I'd like see, MR AGAR, is some tactics and attacking flair.

Looks like another 2 trophyless seasons under someone who is clearly out of their depth.

Do you think that might have something to do with the fact that we had no recognised halfbacks for the entire first half? We already established last year that Berro and Washbrook do not make a good halfback combo but in Agar's defence I didn't see a lot of other options out there.

I also thought that Hall's try showed a fair amount of attacking flair.

i was well pleased with the effort when you consider the team, especially after long's injury
1. tansey regular fullback
2. hall, centre playing wing
3. turner, first game for us at centre
4. yeaman regular centre
5. whiting, centre on the wing
6. washy, loose man at stand off
7. berro, hooker at scrum half
8. cusack, regular prop
9. houghton, back up hooker
10. o meley regular prop
11. manu, forst choice SR
12. burnett, back from dual contract with sheffield
13. radders, prop at loose man
s1. dowes, regular prop
s2. moa, second string prop
s3 lynne, unused sub
s4 long, off injured could'nt return

i make that only 6 players starting in the positions they would if we were at full strength

the only way he could have used lynne would to have moved turner to SO, whiting to centre, washy to loose, but warrington would have had a field day

The rule didn't change, the interpretation of an existing rule changed and in the first half we did the same next to the West Stand and did not get penalised (Briers was shouting at Ganson for a penalty) so he can't even get the consistency in one game.

As for your Agar comments, whether or not you are right about him in previous matches, today Hull were a well coached, much depleted team that scored a couple of excellent tries and could well have taken the points given a fair wind.

Bang on. We were always up against it today and I think every member of the team - Agar included - performed very well.

I know we played today without our recognised halfback pairing but what gets me is there is no second phase of attack,it is all one up rugby and then on the fifth tackle we put a kick up,boring boring,Warrington were far more creative with ball in hand and I think that is down to boring agar

Well said, credit where credit is due

Apart from Lynne, I agree.

he was rubbish

Well, obviously.

The forwards easily matched one of the best packs in the league and the backs all did as well as could be expected without any recognised playmakers. The effort was tremendous. I'd go and watch them get beat every single week if the played with that amount of passion and commitment.

You are so right - that's what we really missed last year and I think it is proof that things have changed at the club. There's a long way to go but today was a move in the right direction.

Yeh, I meant in terms of his choice to be in the side and never played, not his bench warming skills!

Agree with the forward statement, would have been great if we had full side out, Fitz and Hame would have been the finishing blow IMO!

Unavoidable. We had no other fit bodies other than Kent who wouldn't have been used either.

Effort today was brilliant, scoreline flatterred team Ganson and Warrington, with a full team out I reckon we'd of done them today. Long going off did handicap us a lot.

Warrington were the better side, I don't think anyone can argue with that, but they will know they've been in a game after that one, and given the circumstances it was a great effort by the guys.

Manu was for me easily the best forward on the field, and Moa put in a great display too. Things just didn't go our way at times, the charge down for their first try could have gone anywhere, and the decision to penalise Yeaman in the build up their 4th try could have gone either way. All in all we can take a lot of positives from that, a couple of fringe players really put their hands up and a few guys (namely Fitz) got a good rest. I think we can go into these two games against Leeds reasonably confident of at least winning one of them. A win next week would be a bonus ahead of 4 very winnable games against Wakey, Quins, Catalans and Cas. I'm quite happy with how we are going along atm. 4 wins from our next 5 is very reasonable to expect and it would leave us nicely placed to challenge for that 4th spot.

Shut up, you're embarrassing yourself

It was a very good effort today considering the injuries we had to cope with after fridays bruising encounter. Obviously losing Long early in the game was a big blow, we certainly missed him out there organising the side. Despite everything, we were in with a good shout of getting something from the game up until about 15 minutes to go, then we just simply ran out of steam and Wire capitailsed on that and consequently put the game to bed. Their forwards just battered us today, Moa, Manu and O'Meley were outstanding and really held their own, but that was a battle that we just werent going to win given the absences of Fitz, Lauaki and Tickle. I'm pretty sure that if we had a full strength side out there today, we would of been in with a great chance of winning, but there was little we could do about it and all in all we gave a very good account of ourselves imo. Hopefully we'll have some bodies back for sundays game at Headingley, otherwise I think they could put a few points past us.

Not unavoidable at all, Kent could have come on even if it was for 5-10 min spell to purely give the pack a rest. Lynne provided cover for winger, thats it. Waste of space on the bench. Agar even said in a press conference a few weeks ago that you don't put wingers on the bench, when he was praising our versatility.

A tad harsh. We had no recognised halfbacks once Long went off, so hardly surprising that we struggled to score. And our back division might have been pedestrian but we have problems with injuries.

I have seen this side exhibit attacking flair when we have something approaching our first choice side out, and in particular something approaching our first choice halfback pairing. I think that just because we haven't had the appalling injury crisis of the last couple of seasons some people seem to have overlooked the fact that our backs have been all over the place due to a constant string of short-term injuries to players. We've had several halfback combinations and several right wing/centre combinations, a situation that is bound to hinder attack and, in the second case, defence. Players develop partnerships and a feel for how each other play - this is rather difficult when you play with a different partner and even in a different position each week.

There are definite improvements on last season and signs at least that we can still play better. Plenty of work to be done but no need to get out the step ladder and rope just yet.

If we play like that against Leeds next week, especially with a few player's coming back, we must have a big chance. Outstanding effort today.

What difference would a 5-10 minute spell from Kent have made? None whatsoever, is the answer.

Agar obviously thought that Lynne was less of a risk if he had to be used, but neither player would have taken the field unless it was unavoidable.