If you need to take the risks to meet your targets then it would be an option to take the risk here. However, if your target is attainable in a more safe and risk averse way that should be the way to go, and thats whay Agar does.

Lets say we win 20-10 with G Horne playing, and we win 26-16 with Hall playing, but there is more chance with Hall in the team of tackles being missed and the 26-16 being reversed than when G Horne plays, why wouldnt you take the safer 2 points?

And whats wrong with Safe is Safe gets 2 points? Lets not run before we can walk i thinks.

[quote="Big Dave T"]If you need to take the risks to meet your targets then it would be an option to take the risk here. However, if your target is attainable in a more safe and risk averse way that should be the way to go, and thats whay Agar does.

Lets say we win 20-10 with G Horne playing, and we win 26-16 with Hall playing, but there is more chance with Hall in the team of tackles being missed and the 26-16 being reversed than when G Horne plays, why wouldnt you take the safer 2 points?[/quote]


You are Agar and i claim my £5

If we win the first 5 games with that approach you can call me who you like!!

Boring B'stard?

Boring b'stard sitting top of the league with a secure job in a results driven industry. I'll settle for that!

From that response it seems you think that 2 points against Celtic Crusaders is almost the only target (short termist, surely?), and that Hall's inclusion could jeopardise that. Personally I want us to become and stay the best team in SL over the next few years, and I think developing talents such as Hall is a key component for that to happen. The way to do that is for them to play games, and the best games for them to do so are those we should be most confident of winning so as to put less pressure on them, then we can steadily increase their involvement from there.

And I'll say again, if including Hall against Celtic Crusaders could be the difference between winning and losing, we have huge problems. Here's extra for clarity: 2 points against Celtic Crusaders for a team aiming for the top 4 should be safe even with a few team changes, so long as we have the right attitude and application. With that in mind, we should be looking at what else we can get out of the game as well (ie player development).

I think Celtic away will be a tough match, they will have had another week together which will help them and they will also be wanting to put on a show for the home fans. Won't be as easy as some think imo.

I agree it won't be easy, but I can't get my head around the fact that picking Hall ahead of G Horne could be the difference. If we are at all serious about top 6 and playoff semis as a minimum (which is what we should be aiming for IMO), surely we should be at least 12-14 points better than them with the team we can put out regardless of Hall v Horne?

2 points in the next game is always the front of mind target that hopefully by the end of the season will mean you hit your long term target. I agree that in the 3-5 year plan Craig Hall will figure, but if you put that long term cap on again why is it essential he fits into Hulls team now? You talk long term re our plan but then very short termist in regards to Hall!

As you, Hall could be the difference between winning and losing. He may have the effect on us that we lose as well as win.

I firmly believe Hall has a future, i also believe he is under enormous pressure from people saying he is the answer and needs to play. Im hoping Agar is going to hold him back for a limited number of games to allow him to break into the team without the pressure.