Being judged second best to Hodgson as a fullback or Matt King as a centre still makes Ratchford an outstanding player in either position. Not sure where you get the 'lacks strength' : 48 tackles on Friday night, not unusual for him to break out of a tackle, either. I like Hodgson a lot, too, but he would not have been seen playing at loose forward!

It's good that Ratch can fill in at LF when necessary, but I'm not sure I'd want him doing the hard graft game in game out. Where is Ratchford's best position has always been a matter of great debate, and after Friday's game, still is. Whatever our thoughts on the matter are, this conundrum is a good problem to have.

He’s been awesome for us for the best part of a decade. Multiple positions, very rarely a bad game, superb skill and rugby awareness. Truly great signing.

I'm not sure whether Ratchford is the best SL signing ever but he was a great one and I love watching him play on the run ball in hand particularly now he seems to take more care of the ball, is it me or is there less one handed stuff these days?

When we signed Myler the Salford fans I know reckoned we'd signed the wrong half and I'm not knocking Myler but they were right and I'm glad that we went back for him

I understand Ratchford's popularity but also, if we are honest, there's something revealing about where Warrington is as a club, in relation to Saints, Leeds, Wigan, that we have a thread discussing if he is our best ever SL signing.

When it comes to the end of a season and we've lost a GF or been knocked out of the playoffs there are always angry reflections on here and one point which always gets made is we don't have the same ambition and expectations as a club, as those teams that win SL titles. It usually comes up about the coachsomething missing[/i. Why isn't Ratchford a permanent Man of Steel contender? Why isn't he in high demand from the NRL?

Ratchford always comes to mind when lefty gives his end-of-season critique of "we're [itoo nice[/i as a club". He seems like a great guy for the dressing room. Gets moved around to different positions, never complains. We never hear whinging that "the coach isn't using me in my best position". He always looks good in any position as well, he's one of those players like Grix who just has enough rugby sense that he can be put in any position and he knows what to do. Never seems to be bothered by pressure. Top club man. BUT when the team is playing badly or in a bad run of form, do you ever see Ratchford find an extra gear and take control of a game and turn things around and drag the rest of his team to a higher level? No - its the Arsenal characteristic again. He'll "play well in a losing effort". He's not alone in this, and very few players in the league are real difference makers like that. But this is what separates him as a 'nearly great' from the guys like Tomkins, Sinfield, Long.

There's a lot to like with Ratchford - as well as those traits I said above, his career arc is one of improving as he gets into his 30s which is an encouraging sign as many talents flame out after their mid 20s. He used to be error prone and casual sometimes but this has come out of his game and he gets more consistent year on year. We saw how Briers - another player who felt like a 'nearly great' for a while - consolidated his game to be the complete package in his 30s.

The player comparison I would hope for with Ratchford, is that in the later years of his career, he could become what Iestyn Harris was in the early years of his career. He's a similar player to Harris, an elusive runner that lacks the explosive pace to burn people for speed, but very comfortable as a ball handler, solid defence, ok Harris kicking game was better. The difference was, Harris at Leeds, was a real leader who set the direction of the game. Many a time he would change the direction of a game in Leeds favour. If we were a really ambitious club who wanted to be clearly the best in SL like KF always talks about we would be pushing Ratchford to do this.

Ratchford was a great signing. He may not be the best in any given position, but to be second best in so many is surely impressive and warrants his renewed and improved contracts. He plays his heart out and makes a difference to the team.

For what it’s worth, I think his best position is at fullback. I don’t like him out of the way and off the ball at centre and I don’t think he’s quite got the ball skill for a full time half position.

Ratchford has proper competition now for his fb shirt, in matt Ashton, probably doesnt have his all round game but has that stinking electric pace.

With the salary cap system, players like ratchford make a massive difference to fielding a strong team when injuries and suspensions pile up. If he had been given a 6 or 7 shirt and a good long run he would have been one of the best. His versatility has held him back for sure. Play him anywhere in the middle and he will contribute plenty in attack and defence. If its true about widdop wanting out I wouldn't replace him with another half I'd just put ratch there and let Ashton play fullback, keep patton as cover.

It’s no surprise that 2 of his most memorable standout performances, were when he played loose forward.
He has the makings of John Pendlebury, who I consider the best loose forward I’ve seen. If he can bang a stone on in the off season. I would make him 13 period.

Ratchford has been a superb signing and a fabulous, consistently high performing player over a much, [imuch[/i longer period of time than some named on this thread, or others for whom the terms "legend" or "great" have been hastily handed out.

Bridge? Very good centre with an international winger outside him in an excellent team.
Matt King? Wonderful player who was rank average in his first year.
Hodgson? Brilliant full back in a brilliant team overflowing with playmakers and dominant forwards

Stef has done it as well, for longer, than all three and is still here delivering the goods. Bit of respect needed but you might appreciate him better when he's retired.

Great post. Pretty much what I had in mind when I started the thread.

Ratchford has pretty much always produced, whether in a good side or bad one. Probably only Westwood can say the same thing. Briers was inconsistent and only got consistency in his game once Tony Smith arrived and he whipped an already decent squad of players into shape.

A lot of the others who Sally mentioned, while good players, either don't match Ratchford's longevity or were just part of a very good unit of players that we had between 2010 and 2012.

That's an interesting call. Pendlebury was a fine player, but considering you will have seen Mike Gregory and Ellery Hanley around the same period, then it's brave to single him out as the best.