What this discussion is showing us is that we have some great options. If they all stay fit (and its a big iff) then i think we may just do well.

Might have to pop along to the bookies today and have a little flutter on us. (unless i wait til Rovers complete their massive signings which in turn may shorten their odds and lengthen ours)

Really



Last season then when Horne was out of form, Thorman got dropped and there was no Washy either. Agar had to play about with the side numerous times and switched all sorts of player and positions around, yet Whiting onoly played centre or fullback. He never featured in the halves or at 13. There were also chances the prvious year. We have needed cover in lots of areas of the last two years and especially from a creative point of view but Whiting has still not been given his chance.

I am not saying it's right that he hasn't been given the chance but the coaches see him day in/out and must see something that stops them picking him there.

When did he join? he has definately served under Kear, Sharp and Agar, maybe MCrae too. Some of those coaches have had success and none of them deemed Whiting to be a 13. I don't know why but I would take their opinions over fans on a message board.

Because Whiting is our best option when we're struggling at Centre or Fullback. He can't play everywhere. How hard is that to understand?

How hard is it to understand that if he was this great 13 that at least one coach would have seen fit to play him there?

They obviously rate him as a better centre and Washy the better 13.

Ok, let me spell it out for you:

At the times you are talking about last season, we had more than one player who could fill in at 13. We didn't have more than one who could fill in at centre or fullback (and not be hopelessly exposed).

Did you think Agar would move Radford to fullback to play Whiting at 13? He was the best option elsewhere, so he didn't get to play 13. It's been the same throughout his Hull career. He's so versatile that he spends his whole time fighting fires instead of cementing a regular place.

Which indicates that he isn't good enough in any single position, he is simply an average utility body.

Agar deems Radford to be a 13. Would you take that view over fans (most of whom don't) on a message board?

Agar saw fit to drop arguably our best player in Calderwood last season when most on here thought it was the wrong thing to do. Would you take that view over fans on a message board?

What about the whole Thorman thing. Agar did what most fans wouldn't have done in signing him, then continuing to play him when he was crap, then hanging him out to dry in front of the fans. Would you take that view over the fans too?

It indicates nothing of the sort. It indicates that he is incredibly versatile, so, if we have a problem, he can fit in better than just about anyone else in a number of positions.

It also indicates that none of the previous coaches rate him as a first choice 6 or 13. That says a lot. (even when the first choice 6 and 13s have been injured)

He's been needed elsewhere when the first choice 6 and 13 were injured. Or injured himself.

I don't need it spelling out. If Whiting was a real standout 13 there were other option we could have taken is the last few seasons. Both Berrigan and Washbrook have played centre in order to cover injuries. We also had Graeme Horne playing centre and also got some games off the bench in the backrow.

The problem last season with Whiting not playing 13 was not about injuries no matter ho much you try and convince me. The problem was that Agar deemed that the extra forward in Radford was the way to go, wrongly imo.

But as I have said numerous times now, Whiting is a good utility player and does get asked to cover lots of areas, yet not the 13 role. That tells me something about what the coaches have seen in him and his ability to play there.

Should he have been given a go, definately. Will he next season? I very much doubt it, if it's not Washy then it will be a someone like Fitz or Radford, hell I even think Turner might be given a shot before Whiting.

In every instance?

Agree

It's about options. Whiting, as he showed, was easily the best option at full back (for example). So, to put him anywhere else would have been madness when we had no other options to replace him there. The vast, vast majority of the time, we haven't had better options for the position Whiting has been required to play.



But, you're just a fan on a message board. Agar [imust[/i be right. He must have seen something in training to convince him that Radford is a 13. Yes, that's what it'll be.




Radford shouldn't be in the 17 at all next season if we can help it. The fact that he will probably be selected for 13 ahead of Whiting doesn't make it right. Whatever the coach has seen in training.

I think he would have been given a chance to proove himself at 13 in the 2008 season had he not suffered a broken arm and then a broken leg.
He had trained preseason for a role in the forwards and was impressing there in King's testimonial against Huddersfield before breaking his arm.
The broken leg injury stopped him from having a pre season last year and I can only think this was the reason he wasn't given a shot at 13 last season because heavens the team was crying out for a ball player in the forwards.

If he has a good pre season this time I think he will probably get a shot at 13 next year although he is behind Washbrook in the pecking order. Hopefully we have seen the last of Radford at loose man. With the signings that have been made we don't need an extra prop any more.

The point is there have been plenty of times he could have played there under various coaches and he hasn't been picked there.

You're right I am just a fan and I therefore have an opinion on what I see. That said I expect Agar to know better as he sees the players train day in/out. Radford was probably the best forward to play 13 for that style of play, personally I wanted us to play more expansively.

Would not argue on the Radford point but I just don't see him getting dropped. Maybe he and Fitz starting in the backrow will be Agar's preferred choice with Washy at 13 and Manu off the bench. Just leaves nowhere for Tickle.

As is evident on here im probably Radfords biggest fan and i dont see him or Tickle getting in the 17 next season unless injuries happen. Depends i guess whether Agar sees Radders and Dowes as direct competition for a prop spot.

There hasn't, though. He's spent a whole season at centre, huge amounts of time out injured, then been moved about the place to cover every eventuality that seems to crop up. You could perhaps argue that there have been 'one or two' times he could have played there. You can't argue that there have been 'plenty', because that's just not true.

I remember Whiting playing LF against Saints a few seasons ago and he had a stormer. I always feel like were more of a threat with Whiting on the field.

Agar know best, please don't make me laugh.He's seen the players train for the last god knows how many years and as assistant and now as head coach, and all he's proved is that he's useless in tactics, team selection and motivation.

The times he was picked at centre he could have been picked at 13. I can argue about plenty of time cos there has been. This is now pointless as we don't agree. If he gets his chance then we will see how he does, I won't be holding my breathe though.

Yes, we could have moved Radford into the centre. Good idea.





The fact is, when he was playing centre, he was the best person for that job. As I said before, it's about options. If the overall structure of the team would be weakened by playing Whiting at LF and someone less capable at centre, then, of course, it shouldn't be done.

So, no, you can't argue that there have been plenty of opportunities, because it's not true.

That's because we are. He showed enough last season when he was playing at FB to suggest that the more involved he gets, and the more times he has the ball in his hands, the more dangerous our attack will be.