Thanks FMC, nice while it lasted, but it seems normal service has already resumed and I hadn't even followed it up!!

Ratchford is our most elusive runner by a long shot. He tops the stats for "tackle busts" for Warrington and is 11th highest across the league. He is also our 4th highest meter maker per carry. I like him in our side.

I think John Kear said on the SL Show something along the lines of it doesn't matter where you play him, as long as you play him.

Don't forget we signed him in a season where 1,6 & 7 were all nailed on jerseys to "specialists" in those positions, plus both our were on decent form. He still played practically every game in a number of positions including off the bench, and was highly influential for us. Nothing wrong with that IMO.

It was Nobby Noble that said on the SL show about Ratchford. In response to a question by Tanya Arnold (yes I would), on where would you play him...."He should be played in a position where he can get his hands on the ball".

That's the badger.

Question: Is Gidley being brought in to play 1 or 6?

Question: Is Russell REALLY a better fullback?
and as an extension to that question, excluding kick returning how is Russell better than Ratchford?

Is Ratchford just a victim of his own utility? would he be reading defence better if he was given FB permanently?

At centre he would be a better distributor than Atkins, Atkins has the vision of a mole rat looking at the sun through a telescope, no game awareness what so ever, i would absolutely hate to be a winger on Atkins wing. He certainly has the brains for a 2nd rower but is his defence strong enough for the pack?
I fear though that if Ratchford replaced him at centre his running style and willingness to take on the line would still be there and be detrimental to his winger yet again.
Bridge is always looking to beat that first defender and create just enough room for the winger to open up, Ratchford doesnt have it, he's looking for the room for himself, Atkins is just driving it up and then when he's wrapped up looking for the impossible offload, usually as he's falling or that stupid basketballesque over the head of the guy wrapping him up.

Loose Forward for Ratch...not big enough, not strong enough, if they want him in that position then you have to change his training regime and bulk him up, and if that happens it could affect his mobility and change his entire game besides i think Ben Currie is our long term answer to the No.13 shirt.

Stand off....NO, just no and only because we have a Sandow type player in the halves, next a Cronk or a Pierce then all day long i'd have him at 6 but him and Sandow i just can't see at all.
Although even though i say no of all the positions 6 makes the most sense for Warrington the team, if we have to fit him in then halves it is.

I agree with the sentiment that we and I include Ratchford himself in this, should find his best position, keep it and nail it. I thought he was great when he first arrived and has suffered with a bit of a loss of form/confidence, as the whole team has since we lot our influential players around the park. So that's disappointing for me great footballer but he hasn't stepped up as much as he should have IMO

BTW Using John Kear to back up your argument though does you no credit ha ha As he more than Agar or the PT guy has cocked our season up by 'bigging us up' with Tanya on the SL show. I nearly had a 'row' with him at Hudds station bar coming back from Headingly but the 'scrum' for a pint of Black Sheep bitter won and the diminutive bald person was gone once the beer was in my hand....but Kear knew he knew.....

Pre Sandow I was sure that Gidley was going to be Full Back and Ratchford Stand Off. I still think that is the way forward, and he reminds me of John Woods (and not just because of the one handed carry. With a pack going forward Sandow putting doubt in the oppositions mind gaps will appear for Ratchford to exploit.... But then I am a "glass half full" man

You would think having a 6 on his back that he was signed to play stand off, but is he better tied down to one position or given free rein to turn up anywhere in the attack & is there a place for O'Brien next season ?

Me too and probably Tony Smith as well.

Russell's impact on the team when he was fit has made me change my mind though. Not even entirely sure I would play Ratchford now in lieu of a 'proper' centre. Signing Lineham is a waste if he doesn't have a quality centre.

The Warrington Guardian are touting Gidley as a full back or half back ,not a hooker, so somebody will be disappointed.

Gidley at 1 and Ratch at 6 for me.

As an attacking f/b and one on one defending f/b Ratch is good but his positional sense defensively and his organizational ability - in my humble opinion - is not at the level of Hodgson and it's not developed over the last couple of years.

I've not seen Gidley play but from what I read on here (taken with a pinch of salt) he seems to command the respect needed.

The Warrington Guardian are probably right. But with an injury to Clark or Dwyer I would not be surprised to see Kurt Gidley at hooker.

Ratchford is a no. 6

End of discussion.

I agree with one poster, his versatility has been his undoing for you boys this season but to contemplate him playing anywhere else than no. 6 is madness. If he came to Wigan as a centre i wouldn't be disappointed as he could accommodate a better squad (i don't mean that in a gloating way) but he has been trying to prop up your backs all season on his own. He has been on a hiding to nothing all year. Penny, Monaghan, Ormsby, O'Brien cannot compliment or help him out in defence or attack. Gidley at FB, a fit Russell on the wing with one of the others and an up to speed Sandow at no.7 and your team looks a hell of a lot better already. Your second rowers and props are ok, it's the backs that have let you down badly this season. Having said that, i think you are 2 quality centres short too :/ :/

For my money it's Gidley at 6, Sandow at 7. Just watched a couple of weeks worth of Knights games, IMHO Gidley was born to play 6.