Ratchford is our best FB. Agreed with no issue.
Ratchford is also our best HB.

At this time HB is our problem not FB, we can cover that with Penny and Russell. Just because Ratchford is our best FB that doesn't mean we ought to ignore the most important position in the team at scrum half?

There's no agenda here, it's just common bloody sense.
If the role of FB was less significant at last years magic, why is it suddenly so important now?
At City Stadium both team personnel were similar, yet Wire had even less props available back then. Clark was in for Monas and Saints had Walsh in at 7. So on paper Saints arguably had the better squad.

So what was the difference? A significant one, Ratchford at 7 and Bridge at 6. We went with a now out of favour FB Russell, at no1 and everything was blooming roses! How much evidence does it take?

I'm fearful of what with happen with our middle channel with our current HB pairing at Huddersfield. Huddersfield with run channels right up the middle and Brough will give them the biggest education in game kicking they have ever had.

Hellooooo!

The halfback partnership of Myler and GOB does not work. How many feckin times.
We've struggled with props for the last 18 months.

Heavens above put the best biggest backs we have the middle of the pitch to balance out this prop weakness.

Were you at the game today???
If you were you would have seen Simms hill England dominate for first 60 mins, but at some point the backs need to spark and take the pressure off,,
Atkins, ormsby myler , Gob might as well have stayed in changing rooms,
We need 1 prop to get rid of big Roy who did 16 mins stint in total ,,

Our backs are shocking at the moment simple,,

The forwards were fine today. The backs were..............not fine

Have you read my posts??
The forwards are fine, the depth of quality isn't fine.
We did well for 60 mins yes, like almost every other game we do well for around 60 mins.
The depth isn't there to get us through 80 mins.

The engines run out of gas so to speak.
So I'll repeat, one need another quality prop, the depth isn't there.

....,so getting back on topic, get the 2 best backs we have at 6 & 7 to balance up the short fall of quality in depth up front.
It work last season before TS broke the partnership up.

So what happened after we stopped usingTHIS world beating combination last year? I've forgotten about the ten match losing run we went on and slid out of the play offs

You half answered your own question.
From memory....
We got knocked out of the CC and duly showed a collapsed in that form for the play offs.

I'll be honest, when TS broke up the partnership a couple of games before the semi v Leeds, I was convinced TS did it on purpose only to add confusion before reuniting them for that match.
I was completely knocked out when that wasn't the case.
I knew before we kicked a ball at Widnes, even though we thrashed them just the month earlier, that we would get beat and go right back to that early season form. I put my feet up, sat back and watched the inevitable happen.

Bridge isn't a half back, and never will be as long as he lives. He's not intelligent enough. The guy lacks common sense.

He's a strong guy who has decent footwork, but that doesn't make a half. If he warrants a place in this team at all, it's at centre, and he's only in at the moment on past glories, as he's been beyond average all year (as bad as Atkins, who is getting flogged on here)

You're argument about getting your most talented players on the ball I can see some logic, but it's about getting them on the ball in the right area, that's a half backs job. Bridge can't do that, it's all or nothing, rocks or diamonds. He's no patience, no control and a limited skill set. Until we sign a half, id try a different type of rugby, just keep it tight and play fast around the ruck. Run from dummy half with lots of support runners. Abandon the pretty rugby and play direct. We don't have enough intelligence to play the wide sweeping attack that we once were so good at.

My point is only about now Babs.
We aren't going to have another halfback if we signing one until next season.

Bridge was a half and signed as a half, (and so was Ben Currie). Regardless of a players best positions now, it's about what to use as an Elastoplast.

I'd sooner see Currie play as a half than Bridge. He has better pass selection and has a bit between his ears.

Ben Currie was not a half. We signed him (I suspect) on his 16th birthday in 2010, and he was playing for Wigan U16's in the BR. He went straight into our U18's - in the BR. And as been already said, Bridge does not have the organisational abilities to play half. He has been a very good player for us in his time though, and IMO one of our best signings. He must surely depart at the end of this season as his injuries have not just caught up with him, they have bludgeoned him into the ground. So not much point in discussing where he should be playing anyway.

I think we also signed M.Monaghan & M.O'Sullivan as half backs & they didn't work out either....just because Bridgey came as a half back it doesn't mean he is one of superleague standard. To be honest though,i thought Ratch also looked in the CBA camp yesterday & i do wonder at the fitness of certain team members if we are fading so badly & with such repetition.

I understand it as Currie was a schoolboy half.
He was 15 and playing as a forward when touring in Aus, Simon Moran signed him there and then before he came back to the UK.
Wigan(snooze you loose) was waiting until he came home and was 16. Pies found out when Currie got back and they threw the toys out of the pen at us.

So my post was misleading. He wasn't signed as a half, he just was a half.

Anyone who thinks Bridge should play in the halves ought to follow a different sport.

I do, lots of them.