I agree with you in principle here as the modern day hooker has to be a creative player. I don't think he's too tall to be a hooker either as there is very little left in the scrum these days that you have to hang off your props and "strike" for the feed.

Even in the old hooking role Lee Jackson for Hull FC and GB was well over six feet tall, and was a very good player with a lot of pace and durability.

It would be a great shame for us to lose a very good young player that has so much to offer the modern game, (and then find ourselves short part way through a long season with one or more key half backs out with injury).

It might also depend on who is going to be in the loose forward position for the long term.

This fella is genuinely good enough for SL.

Potentially but surely not at hooker.
Please get real !

Ratchford isnt a hooker simple.

There are no 'hookers' in the modern game. They are simply a No. 9 primarily used at the PTB for distribution etc.
Whilst people may think that having Ratchford in the pack would seem unusual, at least he'd be out there playing alongside any halfback pairing.
Everyone seems to agree that he is adaptable and talented, so why not give it a go ?
It'd be a real shame if he was tempted to leave and there'd be plenty of takers I'm sure.

WITH MCRAE, ANYTHING COULD HAPPEN,
RATCHFORD FULLBACK AND PATTEN ON THE BENCH.

i dont buy into all this about size and shape for positions but if your saying hes to tall im sure hes the same size as malc and hes been playing there 10 years +.

why is ratchford simply not an hooker people have been saying on here that malc has to go coz hes to slow and hasnt got a rugby brain ( not sayin i agree with this ) which ratchford has and look at the number 9's now at most clubs monaghan at warrington , robinson hudds , danny orr quins and when sam obst played there earlier in the season thought he was outstanding there are all half backs but think the no 9 position now has changed and its more a 3rd half back position .

If it as you state, "simple", there appears to be a consensus of clued up Reds fans that disagree with you.

It certainly is the case that in the present SL teams (actually the successful ones) that the "hooker" is utilised as an extra half-back and rotated with other "hookers" coming off the bench, which obviously gives the team a lot of flexibility particularly with scoots from AHB and in most cases the kicking game.

It isn't about whether Ratchford is the wrong size/ shape etc for a "hooker" it's more about him having a good rugby brain and being able to use it in conjunction with your other team attributes: a bit like Cunningham and Roby etc.

As one of our Jim Jalfrezi rightly says there are no real hookers anymore: just a bloke between two props that sticks his head in at the scrum.

All the best BD

It's primarily about distribution and being switched-on. Hookers often call plays or at least start plays from AHB and in the modern game, as has been mentioned, are often used as an extra HB. The role of Hooker has completely changed and I don't think it would be a terrible decision to have Ratchford as a rotating Hooker. Someone to speed up play around a tired ruck would be ideal for Ratchfords talents.

A lot of fans are forgetting that there is a lot more to the hooking role than being a tackling machine. Something we have got used to over the last decade or so. Just because Ratchford is the polar opposite of Malc doesn't mean he would be a bad choice. He would just offer more tactically for me than Malc.

Think Ratchford is the type of player you name in a position but he floats around thefield doing what he does best, at hooker think his brain would creat openings for the forwards they havent always been provided with by Alker, but then think we would then potentially have a weakness down the middle of the park if he is a main tackler as he would have lost his backup in Swain.
I personally think that should we get a decent hooker with good distribution skills that either Houldsworth or Stef will migrate to loose and the other take up half back duties with Smith. Not a bad dilema to be having though as for a change we have cover for the vital pivot positions.

Makes more sense to me to have Smith at hooker-he's played there before and Ratchford at 7

So who is going to replace Swain at 13?

Ratchford could easily develop in to a top class 13 given the right coaching........

Well if the Wild rumour is true, then him I would think.

Am I the only one thinking that Ratchford wouldn't be any good as a hooker because his passing isn't good enough??

Rachford @ hooker, it would be worth a look the two things that bother me would be

He plays the game in too nice of a way imo to be a hooker, when was the last time you saw him clean somebody out (legal or illegal) to be a decent hooker you need that bit of venom in you as virtually all the time your in the thick of the action competing physically and mentally with people who can only be described as monsters most of the time and if you dont have the physical strenth, the mental toughness and fear factor to keep getting up and knocking the next attacker down tackle after tackle like some kind of rabid infested dog it wont work.

I just dont feel physically Rachford is their yet in his development to take over the hooking role succesfully, his defence against bigger units is pretty bad .
For me he should be used in a "Thinking winger" role like chris Bridge was at wire let him come in and be the extra pivot and get involved make the defenders think about what you might do.

M Smith would look more like a contender for space in our two man hooking unit , but he like Rachford has problems with bigger unit which in the hooking Role is bread and butter