Waiting for Saddened to pipe up and tell us all that next week we could turn up with Rylands under 10s and still put 50 on Saints.. Same as every year..

If it was almost any other team next Friday I'd be tempted to make wholesale changes and all but sacrifice the game giving most of the squad a weeks rest, but this is Saints!

I'd leave Ratchford in the halves with Gidley and have Westerman coming off the bench to spell Clarke.

Russell
Lineham
Jullien / Currie
Atkins
Penny
Ratchford
Gidley
Hill
Clarke
Sims
Hughes
Currie / Jullien
Westwood

Westerman
Cox
G King
Philbin

A win against Saints and we would be in a good solid position on top of the table. We could afford to lose one and remain top so I would then be looking at massive changes against Huddersfield, possibly sacrificing the game if necessary, then bringing a refreshed squad back for our trip to Widnes and the return fixture against wigan.

Well we dont know the state of the walking wounded. Gidley obviously didn't start off kicking because of his leg and Ratchford didn't end up kicking presumably because of his leg - courtesy of Liam Farrell. We also know Clark nearly didn't play, so will certainly need spelling. Fingers crossed they all come through. Assuming they do, I agree Julien for Revans seems a good choice not just positionally, but because he is a demon tackler, ideal for Saints methinks. After that I suspect everyone including TS will agonise over the choices. Thelonius's solution looks a good one, or will the daring Mr Smith bring back Declan Patton? If he does, he is sure to get targeted, both with and without the ball. Two fresh players would also help after Wire could only use a bench of two for most of the Wigan game.


Who Knows ?

Clark made a mockery of the convention that a hooker needs to be rotated. He was strong throughout and put in some monster tackles.

I agree a lot with the sentiment of this.
It just seemed to become the fashion, when Stains were blessed with Peg Seller Cunningham and a young Roby, and a lot of clubs thought that worked (well it would, with that level of quality) so they copied.

Hooker is the most involved position in both codes, in the middle defending, then following every attacking play, you simply don't get a rest in that position at all, playing 80 mins you need a phenomenal engine, it's easy to understand why rugby rotate hookers.
To not only play with a knock for 80 mins but also pick up motm shows the fitness and fortitude Clark has.

Indeed yes, and Tony Hodson made it look effortless for 80 mins every week back in the halycon days of the 80's.

But I digress. I actually thought Stef did a fine job in the halves last night, in part largely to the kind of assured, steadying, professional performance from Kurt that we all expect by default. I'd quite happily go with those two against Saints, bring Julien in at centre and keep the back-row the same.

Whether we go with Declan on the bench to spell Clarke is another matter but we're going to need plenty of grunt on the bench - Saints are far less George Michael and more Andrew Ridgeley these days.

Well, miaw, if Declan is your idea of a young gun, go for it. Just enjoy what you do. So long as he gets some freedom, it'll be everything I want. My Bad Boys are Sandow and Currie. They take me to the edge of heaven.

If you want any more cheesy Wham puns, I'm your man

This trend of rotating hookers I'm guessing started around 15 yeas ago. The teams now seemingly play a half there rather than a small forward. Back in the day it was usually the smaller forward so he could swing a leg hook in the scrum and still be strong enough to deal with series of tackling the larger guys in the middle.
Since that skill become unofficially obsolete, so did the specialised hooker, shame really.
Clark however is one of the biggest players at that role in SL and is very capable in my mind of putting in 80 min stints in every week.
Playing Ratchford off the bench while Sandow is injured, compromises the balance and strength of the team.

After Hull, Pattern looked to me like he needs prolonged action against a lesser SL team to install him some confidence, I've no doubt he has the ability.
I wouldn't play him during April, just to rotate Clark and Ratchford for half a game each.

And to the discontent of the wire purists, Gidley, is he beginning to show he's battle worn already? Perhaps it's his age, but he's missing some tackles, missing kicks and at times going missing. Ratchford was the dominant half clearly v Pies and his game management cemented that win. For this reason, Ratchford must partner Gidley. With a proven hb partner Kurt can relinquish some responsibility put upon him helping to allow that form he had before his bang to the head to return.

I await the backlash off Gidley lovers and scapegoat propaganda posters.

Well Hill has not missed a game this year, and played in every one of our 34 last year. If we did not have him I reckon we would have been playing in the middle eights in 2015. In 2014 though, he did miss one game out of 34 - Bradford at home on June 29th (50-24) when TS rested him. In 2013 he had a very lazy year and was rested twice, one of which coincidentally was against Bradford. Even in his first year 2012, he only missed three possible games - the first two of the season, and then - you have guessed it, Bradford again in July.

So Hilly has never been injured and has missed four games in four years - a staggering performance. And you can add to that the fact he has never been carded or suspended, never been involved in dirty play despite plenty of provocation. I was going to say he never swears on the pitch either, but after his 'discussion' with Lockers after the Farrell incident, I will have to quickly skate over that one. He is a real life Mr Marvel.

I asked mr hill yesterday if he was a bit sore after the three games in 8 days and he just shrugged, looked at me as if i was an idiot and just said 'nah'. Best prop in the world. I foolishly called him a potty mouth and he just finished me off with a look. He didn't know the extent of sandows injury but didnt seem overly concerned

RD - I think you're well off kilter with your Gidley comments.
He doesn't go from being top notch to an 'also ran' in a few weeks. (I know you didn't exactly say that but implication was he's on borrowed time)
I doubt he's 100% fit at the moment (limited kicking for goal).
Regardless, it's a good position for us to be in.

Didn't players like Duane Mann and Danny Farrar used to play the full eighty?

We talk these days as though it is an impossibility.

Yes they did, but I think the sheer intensity of the game has increased nowadays- especially for a 9.

I know what you mean although I'm not sure it is like with like. I am only just about old enough to remember Mann, but I do remember Farrar. He was a guy who would make 50 tackles a game, but probably ran with the ball once or twice in 80 minutes so less of an attacking weapon than we use Clark or Ratchford as.

That said, there is definitely a place for an 80-minute hooker and many of the best still manage it.