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.

Any news on Sandow or Evans scans yet???

At risk of asking a possibly stupid question, is there any reason why Clarke couldn't play as hooker when we have the ball and defend wider allowing a second row to play more central in defense? Surely doing that would give us his best in attack but give him a bit of a 'rest' when the opposition have the ball.

Evans scans have come back positive not as bad as everyone feared

We've been poor in previous years recently and still beaten you at times because you were also pretty average. Now you've got probably your best ever SL lineup and look clear favourites for the trophies this season. You'll see just how limited a side Saints are when you play us. We have no pace in the side and can only score from kicks or from barge overs from 10 yards out. I won't guarantee you'll humiliate us, but if you ignore the shirts it's like playing an average home game against Hull KR, that's the level we're at currently and you really should be winning comfortably. We've got a semi decent pack, albeit with Walmsley in awful form, but easily the worst set of backs in Super League. McDonnell, Dawson, Peyroux, Turner and Owens aren't good enough to play for Saints. We won't make the top 4 this season and we're very fortunate Leeds and Huddersfield aren't their usual selves or we'd be fighting to stay in the top 8.

You never disappoint Sado that's for sure ha ha

The horrible thing is, this time he's actually not exaggerating

McDonnell, Dawson, Peyroux, Turner, Owens.

That is a relegation back 5.