We must have. All we seem to produce are halfbacks and second rowers!

There must be a couple of kids in the Academy team who fancy having a go against the mighty Ull!

Cheers

Wilkin is a poor half back, Hooper nothing but a runner with little creativity about his game. We'd have struggled with those two in the 6 & 7 positions for any length of time (i.e more than about 40 minutes).

The fact that you've named our first choice stand off and two forwards (one of which was a guaranteed start in the back row) as back cover shows the poor depth we had in the backs at the time.

I cant agree with that for the simple reason we would have had the pack to get us up the field for starters added to which Hooper played his most succesful stint at Saints at 6. Wilkin isnt a novice at Stand Off so I think we would have been ok. Dont get me wrong we would have lost more matches but not as many as you think. I wouldnt consider naming our Stand Off and a starting player in the back row at the time as poor depth really. Its great to have utility players in your squad so that you can cover all but the worst injuries. Pryce has played Full Back, Wing and Centre for both club and country and Gilmour has played on the wing for Great Britian as well as playing Centre for Bradford on numerous occasions and for us when he have had a problem in the backs. So I stand by my point that in 2006 we had our best strength in depth.

He did, but with Long at his very best alongside him, without that, he'd have been far less effective.



He was then though.



I don't think we'd have lost more matches than we won, but we had very few injuries that year to test the depth of the squad, certainly far, far less than we've had this year. Pack wise we were fine, you've done nothing to persuade me otherwise in regard to the backs considering you've named forwards to cover backs