It's sad when you think back 18 months or so, and remember how excited we all were when the Matt King signing was announced. Now I reckon most Wire fans, myself included, would gladly contribute to a whip-round for his air fare back home.
I wonder if we could swap him for Brent Grose....

There was somebody we should have kept.

And that is purely your opinion.

I thought he had a shocker against the French.
Falling over into touch after taking a kick and conceeding possession - come on.

Last week was just as bad - letting the ball bounce? Coming into the line at, in my opinion, the wrong place and as a result taking a pass clearly not meant for him in the chops, conceeding possession and giving them a 60/70 yarder?

Stick him on the wing and put Hicks (with his undoubted experience) at FB.

Very true, i used to love watching the NRL on a Saturday/Sunday morning when either Melbourne or Manly were playing and drooling over the ability of King and Monaghan, and thinking we were going to be Grand Final certs. 18 months on and we are a laughing stock, with King and Mona's looking shadows of the players i watched in the NRL.

it's a shame because he seems like a nice bloke but i would love it if there is some sort of unprecedented mid contract move back to australia for him

i was hell bent on being optimistic about him at every turn, when other team's fans were boasting about their centre owning him, including that game at leigh where, looking back, he was dismal i always had big hopes but now i say get penny back in there with bridge inside him, mistakes and all give the lad a good sustained chance to learn and get better

Yes that's why i said arguably.

Although every player had a shocker against the French.
Do you think Riley would score the same amount of tries that Hicks does on the wing

I'd love that and I also agree we should have kept him on contract


I also agree King should be dropped or sent home would be better but I don't think it'll happen

Neither?

Agreed again. Would also send out the right signal to the other 'senior' players that they need to earn their starting place.

I totally agree J. IF a player can't break into the first team after that performance then it send the signal out that the reserves & the youth development isn't worth a toss.

However, putting him into the Leeds game facing the backlash that they're going to inflict on us is the wrong game. I'd tell Penny that his efforts are worth a call up but after next week.

This week I'd swap Hicks & Riley over, Put Clarke in at 9 to shore up the system & bring Higham on for the last 15 each half for Vinnie & drop Clarke to 13.

He was a fullback for Woolston Rovers.

If it was down to me I would bring Penny back but play him outside of anyone other than King. I would also stick with Riley at fullback for the time being as I believe that out of everyone currently at the club, he is most likely to be the first choice fullback in years to come. Monas needs to be moved to hooker sooner rather than later, and Bridge needs to partner Briers in the halves to give us a more dynamic partnership.

In my mind the best compromise to acheive all this would be Riley at fullback and play King outside Gleeson. If an Australian international (even an average one) can't switch wings then he may as well tear up his own contract and go back on the bins at home). If King can't find his confidence playing outside Gleeson then he will never find it. If Gleeson can make a donkey like Henry or a journeyman player like Hicks look good, then if it clicks what can he do with King?

At left centre I would play Hicks. This isn't an ideal solution, but he does have experience as an NRL centre and, as already said, there have to be some compromises somewhere. Outside Hicks I would play Penny.

This would free up Bridge to go into the halves, then Monas to Hooker, then Higham to impact hooker, where I believe he will be more effective than in his current 80 minute slot.

Theres a game i would go to watc, King in the reserves!!!
Jimmy wouldn't play him if he dropped him though.