Agreed. I can't believe anyone is even thinking about leaving out Hicks. Short memory syndrome strikes again.

To be fair it might be worth giving him a game in the reserves just to get a little more match fit then bring him in for Saints... his defence wasnt the best against Hudds and got caught out a few times... We'll not struggle against Celtic without him.

I think that title belongs to Brian Bevan.

I'm sure there might be a couple of issues with giving 32 year old Chris Hicks a game for the u20's this weekend.

I just can't think what they might be.

TS will leave the team as is for this week. He will then have the selection issues as good as they are for the Bradford game and then Stains away!

Given Riley's performances, why should Hicks walk back into the side at Riley's expense?

because there is no game?!!!!

I thought you were allowed 3 overage players in the under 20's this year as opposed to last year when you were allowed 8??

You could name 17 over-age players this week. They don't have a game.

I didn't mention this week. I was referring to your comment on Chris Hicks being 32 and the couple of issues on him not playing in the under 20's.

Mathers
Riley
Bridge
King
Hicks

although I would prefer to see Hicks at FB King move to the wing and Atkins in the

Basically Paul's wrong but he hates to admit it.... there's no issue at all with him playing in the reserves, next week the week after or next month.

I think you will find that the original suggestion was that Hicks gets game time in the reserves so he'd be better prepared for the Bradford and Saints games.

The key point was that there is no game this week to allow this.

The reference to being 32 was a snide dig but I'm allowed that today for keeping stum elsewhere.

I see somebody has been editting their post.

This point scoring and and silly squabbling is pathetic.