Not sure if I'm a "purest" (sic) but you do talk some tripe. He is a different player to Moz but his contribution is phenomenal, weren't you the one who said he should be injured so the club would know how much we rely on him?

For the record I don't think there was any lack of effort last night. What I saw was a bunch of players who are struggling with fitness and confidence. The fitness issue comes from all the injuries we have suffered this season meaning we have overplayed young players, relied heavily on a small group of senior players to work too hard as a consequence and rushed players back before ideally we should.

I don't follow you. Are you saying I'm talking tripe and then make a wide turn saying he is a different player to try and avoid agreeing Hill is not as good as Moz. Which is it? You can't have it both ways. Hypocrite

I'm confused too. Clark seems to be playing a very different game from the one he played so well last year, Ratchford is a great player but not at fullback and Penny, despite some of his shortcomings (which he has worked on) is one of the fastest players in superleague and I can hardly remember the last time we 'got him away'.

Is ratchford a great player? No certainly not great. He's a major issue for me, shoehorning him into the side causes problems. In a great side he's a luxury you can afford. If Russell were fit he'd be on the bench as cover for me or I'd be seeing if any club were stupid enough to buy him. Sorry but I've just NEVER got the hype over him at all. His percentage of good games must be somewhere around the 50% mark.

Ratchford has loose forward written all over him. It's up to him to bulk up, and TS allow him that opportunity. It's Ratchford's best chance of a international call up. He sure as hell ain't going to get called up at positions 1-3/4-6-7.

Last season at Cas, Clark was given more of a free role, often coming off the bench, to run at tiring defences.
This year, he has been asked to play a more structured game, and when Dwyer comes on, is often asked to play second row.
He is more than capable of doing these duties (even though he has been carrying injuries for most of the year), but it isn't utilising his talents to the optimum.

+1

frustrates the hell out of me... i just dont get the hype at all.

It's a +1 from me, too
I remember when the rumours were rife that we were signing him, and Salford were playing at the HJ a week or so later. I kept an eye on him all game, and he barely broke sweat, and I came away none the wiser.

Don't get me wrong, I'm nowhere near a disliker of him. I've just thought that he's
50% good to great games
50% emperor's new clothes

imo, if he's your cast iron full back in your side, you've got problems. Average under a high ball, at times he's turnstile-like in defence, but pretty good in returning a ball. For me, that's not as good as Stuart Reardon.
He's not got the pace of a winger. As a stand off, he's a poor man's Johnny Woods. Bang a couple of stones on him, and play him as an "old fashioned" loose forward. We don't HAVE TO conform to current trends, and have an extra prop @ LF.
Our play since MMonaghan/Briers/Hodgson retired is predictable, and at times, pedestrian. Get him further up the pitch, where he can be more affective.

Good sound reasoning, a few games the semi final in particular with the team unable to raise their game with a final at stake had all the hallmarks of a busted team, my reasoning is it's down to Tony Smith and his staff from coaching/tactics to fitness and conditioning.

Hopefully the latter will be corrected with Smith saying there is to be a major overhaul including back room staff.

Has he said this or are you hoping he will say this ?

There was an article on the Guardian website the other day saying so.

As GaryHulsefan said it's in the WA Guardian, quite a lot of changes.

No I'm saying he is a DIFFERENT type of player, not better not worse. As for hypocrisy, your opinions change with the wind. It's said if you put a hundred monkeys in a room for a hundred years with a typewriter they may eventually produce a Shakespeare play...I suspect it would take 100 Rubber Duckies a lot longer.

5.47900390625:5