I would really want to see Wilkinson get a go as to be honest we really haven't got much to leave. I'm pretty sure we won't make the 8 which leaves us fighting out in the Qualifiers again which we should walk.

Yep, I can see your point, the players are playing like they've given up, so why not throw some deserved youngster a bite at the cherry. I'd rather watch an enthusiastic youngster than a disinterested senior primadonna. Any day of the week.

Same with me, went and watched Bibby on Sunday playing for Crusaders and he gave more in attack and defence playing for a team he wasn't part of then any but maybe Sau did on Saturday.

HillBillyRed, I'm sure Tim and Ian will be more worried about our defensive collapses collectively rather than our individual Hooking personnel if you sort out the collective defensive issues, it'll probably solve the Hooker situation outright for one game at least.

"if you sort out the collective defensive issues, it'll probably solve the Hooker situation outright for one game at least"

polite comments
Sadly I disagree: one issue is our hookers defending so strongly: Lee and Tomkins stand out in their willingness to tackle and I'm sure this tires them more than we need. The Alker methodolgy is past: hookers have to be part of the defence but also need to think quickly so gaps are exploited. So the man mountains in the centre are becoming out-moded. They cannot be so tired.

Then again, if we could move up quicker and prevent passes and cheap yards, then the opposition would be on a back-foot and the hookers could set up faster moves. So the defence may help the hookers. But the defensive line I witnessed at the last two games, and the need for three players to stop any opposition forward, suggests a quick fix is not going to work. In fact, I think it could make it worse. I am not complaining about commitment. Several players try too hard when it begins to turn against us: they try to do so much and leave gaps, duplicate tackling around the ball-arm, rush around to get into the tackles and so tire themselves and lose the tactical plan. Every game has periods when we will be looking to be in the ascendant and periods when the opposition will be. We are very guilty of not building on the former and panicking in the latter.
Then again, by on large, we have a young squad. So work on that. We miss Morley here. Let's get back to basics and the tactical plan, not change it too much.

The Saints side we saw at the AJB and on telly the week after were not trusting each other when running back to take up the defensive line: it was obvious they lacked confidence. Both ourselves and the Aussies were able to exploit this by finding gaps as players moved out of their position to where they thought they could compensate. Salford could do the same.

Sorry 'HBR', but are you saying that basically, our fragile defensive lapses are solely due to our problematic concoction issue at Hooker? I totally disagree, If you review the fixtures we've played this season with the exception of Castleford last week you'd see that the Hooking role wasn't the key indicator for these defensive lapses.

Hull Away - Lee, Tomkins.= 42 points
St Helens Home - Lee Tomkins = 10 points
Widnes Home - Lee, Tomkins = 20 points
Wigan Away. Lee, Tomkins, = 20 points
Warrington Home - Lee, Tomkins = 31 points
Castleford Away = Lee, Tomkins = 16 points
Hull KR Away - Lee, Tomkins = 42 points
Catalans Home - Tomkins, Joseph = 26 points
Huddersfield Away - Tomkins, Wood = 24 points
Wakefield Away - Tomkins, Wood = 32 points
Leeds Home - Tomkins, Wood = 10 points
Hunslet Away - Wood, = 14 points
Catalans Away - Tomkins, Wood = 42 points
Hull KR Home - Lee, Tomkins = 26 points
Castleford Away - Joseph = 32 points

Overall points against this season so far = 391 points averaging 26 points per game
Average points against with Lee and Tomkins playing = 207 points = Averaging 25.87 points per game.
Average points with 1 x Recognized Hooker in Tomkins = 134 points. = Averaging 26.8 points per game
Average points without any recognized Hookers = 46 points which = Averaging 23 points per game.
So your absent Hooker theory doesn't comply with the defensive statistics HBR. It's a collective defense issue.

NO
I stated that the hookers are doing too much defending (against Leeds, I frequentlysaw the two hookers chase out of position to join a tackle) which is not helping our attack.
I feel our defenses have been poor but I wonder if this is down to "Several players try too hard when it begins to turn against us: they try to do so much and leave gaps, duplicate tackling around the ball-arm, rush around to get into the tackles and so tire themselves and lose the tactical plan. Every game has periods when we will be looking to be in the ascendant and periods when the opposition will be. We are very guilty of not building on the former and panicking in the latter."

And if it is, then we're not going to cure that in a week or two.

Fair enough but, I don't understand your logic.How does the former affect the latter? Also with the "Hooker'' joining the tackle, how do you know that this isn't the tactical ploys wanted by the coaching staff. Tim and Ian's whole defensive structure may hinge on three men tackling, therefore if, there's a two men tackle in progress, then Tim and Ian will want the third man in ASAP Especially against an offloading team like Leeds because our whole defensive structure may be based on a three men in the tackle, this is how structured defence's work, it's definitely not off the cuff like many people think.it is.

at the risk of turning this into a dialogue, not a thread:
1. Yes it will be deliberate : hookers/nos9 are seen as vital defenders in the middle and, yes, 3 man tackles seem to be the feature of SL teams. But to see each of our hookers (when each was on the pitch) skipping out wide worried me: it frequently was the 3rd/4th tackle and that player would be importantly involved in the attack in the next minute and had to get there.
2. I think they are trying. I think they are concentrating. Could we be seeing the effect of mental tiredness which looks like not concentrating? Mental tiredness also leads to poor decision-making, which causes gaps or wrong angles: which looks like lack of enthusiasm. We concentrate a lot on physical toughness. What about resilience?

Anyway, let's allow others to comment IF THEY WANT.

The Squads have been named I can see the line-up looking a bit like this.

1. Jonny Lomax, 22. Jack Owens. 21. Matty Dawson. 4. Mark Percival, 5. Adam Swift, 19. Theo Fages.
7. Luke Walsh, 8. Alex Walmsley, 9. James Roby, 10. Kyle Amor, 11. Atelea Vea, 12. Jon Wilkin, 13. Louie McCarthy-Scarsbrook, Subs. 14. Lama Tasi, 15. Greg Richards, 16. Andre Savelio, 18. Dominque Peyroux, 27. Jack Ashworth, 28. Morgan Knowles.


14. Gareth O'Brien, 2. Justin Carney, 4. Junior Sa'u, 33. Josh Jones. 5. Daniel Vidot, 6. Robert Lui, 7. Michael Dobson, 8. Craig Kopczak, 19. Logan Tomkins. 10. George Griffin, 11. Ben Murdoch-Masila, 12. Weller Hauraki, 13. Mark Flanagan, Subs. 1. Niall Evalds. 21. Ryan Lannon. 15. Adam Walne, 17. Phil Joseph. 16. Olsi Krasniqi
20. Jordan Walne,

Ah, Fages is playing there's a big chance we could win this.

correct (I'm even harder to please)
but let's have others joining in

For the first time I'm driving to Langtree Park from Preston and wondering can anyone recommend a good place to park?

So am I! Chalons St car park from Saints forum, 10 min walk, open until 11.00 & £1.

Sounds good to me, cheers mate.