Dowes and King will be here as props and we are looking at signing another. Luauki could be the 4th prop and Fitz plays the full 80 minutes so could also be the 5th prop. That I think would leave one more space for either Thacks, Moa or Maloney.

Far better? On what basis?



He's had virtually no chance. The vast majority of the rugby he has played for Hull has been at centre. Most people say he's not a centre, yet he consistently plays well there. Given a run at LF he'd be a very, very useful player. At least as good as Washbrook if not better.

King will probably only play half the season though, so we need capable cover.

Not sure Whiting has the power or the engine to play at 13. Washbrook gets through tons of work and still chips in with line breaks, support play and try assists through good hands. Whiting may be able to play there and using him there this season would be good so we can see if he is capable or not.

I reckon Washbrook could be a real star, he reminds me a lot of Sinfield at Leeds at the same age.

Washbrook is a good player, but I don't know if he's as good as you're making out. I've always thought of him as a good SL player rather than a future international.

Whiting may or may not have the engine to play 13, but I see no reason to suspect he won't have. His RL brain is one of the best at the club and he reads the game incredibly well. I think, behind a dominant pack and a couple of decent half backs (Long and Horne?), Whiting could be a real attacking threat.

In any event, there's absolutely no basis for saying Washy is 'far better' than Whiting by any stretch of the imagination.

There is basis, Washy has played 13 and played there very well, he has also played 6 very well and was our best players last season behind Berrigan. For a start Whiting has to be able to get through a season or two injury free and whilst he has only had limited chances at 6 and 13 he has never impressed there.

I like Whiting, don't think I don't but there is no basis to say he will perform well there. Yes he has a good brain but that does not mean he will play 13 well.

Like I said I would like to see him given a run there this season whilst Washy is injured so we can see what he can do.

If he is such a good 13 why has none of the Hull coaches ever given him a run there?

He should be booted out of the club WAY PAST his sell buy date

Agreed, but he is under contract for 2010.

He plays for sydney roosters in that position

I'm with Paul M on this, Washbrook is the better player for me and is a massive part of the jigsaw. He's a player who for me will be a real star, he's our 13 imo.

Whos was the buffoon who gave him a contract

Maybe .... but they don't have Lee Radford to play there, Fitzgibbon will have to stick to the 2nd row I'm afraid.

My only worry is we will play Radford, Tickle and Fitzgibbon in the backrow and Washy will be bench or not in the 17, which would be criminal imo. RA has to learn to choose between Tickle/Radford.

The one option is to have only one prop on the bench instead of two and play two backrowers (Washy/Manu) and utilise Fitz as the 4th prop during interchanges.

He's had some good games there, but not over an extended period. That still doesn't mean he's 'far better' than Whiting.



I disagree with part of this. He did as good a job as could be expected under the circumstances, and performed bravely. To say he played 6 'very well' is stretching the point a little. It would be more accurate to say he played 6 'very well for a forward'.



He hasn't. Stupid Whiting getting a broken arm and a broken leg in the same year. Will he ever learn? Doesn't make him a bad player though.



He's had the odd game there at best. When he's had a few games in either position, then we'll see.



The fact that he's had a few injuries and limited opportunities doesn't mean he won't play 13 well, either.



Because he's either been injured or covering in the centre perhaps?

As I said earlier, Aussie sides tend to play three second rowers rather than a traditional ball-handling loose. If we want to go down that route, fine, play Fitz there. If not, Whiting or Washbrook has to be 13.

That's better.

I'm not getting deeper and deeper into this, I don't care whether you agree or not and am not interested in trying to convince you. I never accused Whiting over his injuries so yu can cut that bollox about broken legs etc.

Whiting has been with the club a number of years and none of the coaches have ever seen fit to give him an extended run in the side at 6 or 13. Personally I would like to see him givena shot at 13 and hope he would do well there and provided the money is right I would rather see him kept on instead of Thorman as he could cover 6 and other positions whereas Thorman can't.

Washbrook can only be judged on his performances and imo he has been excellent for us, more so at 13 than 6 but even at 6 in a side with no direction he still performed very well and certainly better than most others during that season.

Would probably get my vote if we bring someone with decent impact in. If we could afford to I'd like Thackray to stay on so that we have the opportunity of choosing between him and King at the end of next year.

On the Whiting debate, I'd love him to stay. My only concerns are obviously his injuries, and then the fact that he seems to have been earmarked for the backrow for the past 2-3 seasons but still hasn't really bulked up enough IMO. If he's struggling to do it, maybe his frame just isn't cut out to enable him to play regularly and effectively in the forwards.

Good, cos you won't. And likewise, by the way.



You mentioned it in a discussion about why Washbrook is a 'far better' player. Why mention it if it wasn't relevant?



And how much of that time has he been fit, but not playing centre? Virtually none. Again, a flawed argument.



Even without having a run at 6 or 13, Whiting should be kept on ahead of Thorman. Every single OOC player should be kept on ahead of Thorman.



So has Whiting, FFS. Maybe not at 13, but, as I've already pointed out, he's not had the chance through injury and playing centre.



I'm not detracting from what Washbrook had to do in difficult circumstances, but I'd hate to be in the position where he ever has to play six for an extended period again. He looked like a forward playing six - very well for a forward, but still a forward nonetheless.

I'd suggest that even if he isn't going to be first choice LF, we need quality cover in a number of positions and Whiting provides this.

If a halfback gets injured, do you want Whiting coming in, or Thorman?

If a LF gets injured, Whiting or Radford?

If a centre gets injured, Whiting or G Horne?

Whiting . His "utility" value alone should secure him a new deal.

I mentioned his injuries the same way I would with Motu Tony, he has been out for large periods. You can FFS all you want but you have just posted all the same stuff again and nothing new. Washbrook is producing in the 13 role, when Whiting does so we can have the discussion, if he ever gets to play there that is.

I hope he stays but I am not sure he will. Should we sign a centre then I see him struggling to get into the 17 man squad.

Thats a no brainer for starters....Tickle offers a damn sight more than what Radford ever will do.

The back row should be.

Tickle
Fitzy
Whiting/Washy

Manu off the bench with another impact prop

Totally agree with Paul, Washy has to be our number 1 loose forward and yes he is far better than Whiting there, although I would give Whiting another year because he can cover centre,stand off and loose man, I must admit would rather see Whiting at 13 than Radders.

Not really wanting to get into the whole Whiting vs Washbrook debate, but how can you say that? Whiting has had maybe two games at 13 in his entire career.