In all seriousness, none of those 4 could yet replace Wilkin's leadership/organisational role on the field yet. Walsh will need to focus on getting through his first couple of games before he gets back to full-on midfield general. Burns is still a newbie who - let's not repeat the thread - is not yet in a position of being able to direct the action, Hohaia is never an on-field leader, and Hewitt is a kid who's barely played any first team ever. Wilkin, on the other hand, is a vastly experienced ex-GB international, multi-trophy winner and long-time club leader with a good rugby brain and a vocal leadership method, as well as being club captain.

Can we just nip this in the bud a bit ? Unless he's injured, or has an absolute shocker of a standard way below every other forward on the field - neither of which is the case - then Wilkin will be in the side. He'll be there on merit too. I think he brings more to the side as a package than any of the other forwards bar the specialists Roby, Amor and Walmsley.

I know a lot of people like Greenwood, Thompson and Richards. I like them too. But I'd never name any of them above Wilkin. Likewise, I'm still a long way from selecting Flanagan, LMS, Savelio, Mose or Vea ahead of Wilkin either.

I'm not his mum, but I think this grumbling about Wilkin is really badly misplaced. This isn't a Wellens situation from last year, where there were clearly several people who were simply physically able to contribute much more to the team than Wello at fullback or loose. Wilkin is easily in our top three back-rowers, and in terms of minutes offered, tackles made, leadership offered, and positional flexibility, remains at the top of my list.

To be fair I just meant with Wilkin playing at 7. He can still provide leadership and the like in the pack. But I would rather see him at the back of the scrum kicking once or twice a match. Injecting himself into the kicking role when needed, but we have Lance our marquee signing who can do a job at halfback and should not be frozen out when Wilkin can play in a role that he is better suited to.

Even at the end of the last match Wilkin refered to people having low expectations in his halfback role.

Fair enough. I agree that I'd certainly have Burns and Walsh ahead of Wilkin in the halves. I haven't seen any Hewitt to form a view, but I'm guessing there's a reason why the coaching staff don't see fit to use him when injury opens up a space. As for Lance, I'm afraid I struggle to see a way back for the lad. He was so consistently mediocre for the first 3 years here, no matter what position he played, that I just don't see how he stakes a claim back in the team. It's a shame, because he came with high hopes, but his move to Saints hasn't been a success, and the lack of interest from other clubs in taking him away and giving him a first team regular spot speaks volumes about how widespread the view is that he's now a fringe player.

People are saying Wilkin won't be able to revert to the pack again, but I don't think it'd be a problem. He'll happily give us 45 tackles a game, which will take the pressure off the big guys.

Wilkin has a stinker at 7 now and then (this weekend a case in point), but as a converted backrower I think that is inevitable. He's still the best option as a main playmaker outside of Burns and Walsh IMO. I would like to see Burns doing a little more kicking, though.

What I find irritating is the kind of suggestion you tend to see on here and the other forum that Wilkin has a massive ego and is hogging the playmaking duties because he loves himself and thinks he's an awesome 7. This sort of thing has followed Wilkin around for years, probably because he's a good-looking lad who can string a sentence together and doesn't mind speaking up. I suspect the reality is that he's just doing the job he's been asked to do by his coach. Most weeks he makes a decent fist of it.

But so would flash.

Yes he would. I would personally prefer flash as a player. I think his extra physicality in defence makes him a better bet, but Wilkin is our captain, so will play. What he lacks in physicality he tries to make up with those more intangible contributions, I suppose, but either way the difference between Flash and Wilkin in the back row (on the whole) isn't much.

Wilkin is a far better player than Flanagan.

It's strange the amount of stick Wilkin got for his admittedly poor game on Friday but nothing said about Burns who missed six tackles, gave away two penalties and only carried the ball for 43 metres.

Saints are building up to full speed for Good Friday Thanks

I'd much prefer Wilkin to Flanagan in the back row. He has a similar work-rate and is, for me, streets ahead in attack. He's pretty physical as well, when he's not got game-management to think about.

As an all round player, I agree, but I'm still haunted by previous seasons in which an underphysical (yet talented) pack stifled us - especially in the derby. Wilkin was probably the prime example of this. Admittedly , those days are gone and, as I say, Wilkin on work rate alone is a decent member of our pack.

I might disagree, slightly. Whilst his targeted defence is very good, he really struggles to dominate in defence, which Flash excels in. Flash is more likely to cause a slow PTB and Wilkin is more likely to give a penalty trying.
His best application in attack would be picking those lines outwide, in which Greenwood and Vea had so much success in the first two rounds.
I think Flash may be a little underrated in attack, but admit Wilkin brings more.

I reckon Wilkin has the edge on Flanagan with play options, don,t forget we have struggled for 4 or 5 years to get some decent half back partnership, Wilkin dropped in bulk to provide the "stop gap" which really hasn,t got filled until we see the Walsh/ Burns pairing.
In the absence of Wello we seem to have dropped into "Wilkin Bashing" mode, Wilkin will never be a half back so he won,t have a consistent performance, but fans will demand it.
This is Walshy,s last season and we need to establish a good postion in the league because of the new format, this might mean Hewitt might not get his chance yet until a backlog of injuries start to bite.
Walsh and Burns will take a lot of pressure off Wilkin, so until that happens I think we need to give him some slack.

I agree but I don't think Wilkin will wabt to take the ball up anymore and that then becomes a problem.

If that happens he needs to be sat next to Cunningham or in the commentary box

No different to Flanagan then.