correct and diskin just wasn't selected.

Thats why i said i stood to be corrected as i wasn`t 100% sure, i think it was the year after that Newton fractured his cheekbone towards the back end of the season. Diskin was an odd one as he had been in good form for Leeds.

My initial thought is that Clarke will be taking up a pretty large portion of the salary cap to play as 3rd, or maybe joint 2nd, choice hooker. Based on that I would rather, if we can find a club and terms agreeable to all, offload Clarke.

However, I prefer to go into a game with a bench consisting of 2 props, a hooker and a utility player (preferabley a forward). On reflection, and having read some comments on this thread, Jon Clarke is an ideal utility interchange. As has been said he can cover halfback, second row, loose and (obviously) hooker.

Given a choice between VAnderson or Clarke as 17th man I would take Clarke every time. The more likely choice between Clarke or Grix as 17th man is far more difficult and I suspect would depend very much on the opposition, weather/ground conditions and probably most importantly, minor (ie players can still play but...) injuries to any of the other 16.

This whole Jon Clarke business is exactly the same as with Mike Wainwright a few years back. The typical blinkered Wire fan cannot & will not see what the player brings to the team, because he doesn't make 50 yard scoots from the ptb or throw out wonder passes to the 3/4 line he doesn't seem worthy of the mentions. What Clarke will bring to the starting lineup is a steadying influence allowing the forwards to build the platform before the backs get all excited spraying the ball around left right & centre. We nearly came unstuck at Cas for having no forward platform and only Lee Briers grabbing the game by the scruff got us out of a big hole. You have to have players who will do the simple things & do them well - and Jon Clarke does that. Let him play the starting role & bring Monas off the bench to wreak havoc after 20 when the opposition are tired of being battered by Morley/Carvell/Westwood & Louis.

And Clarke does actually do very good long passes out to the centres. Just not very quickly from the play the ball area. His 50 yard scoot in Barcelona wan't bad either.

I think the Wainwright and Clarke analogy is quite accurate. Both divide opinion and both would not/did not attract the attentions of more successful clubs than Warrington.

I do not agree that you must be "blinkered" to not fancy Clarke in your side. Some of us I guess want something different from the No 9 position.

In my view he was not worth a FOUR year deal (as I am not sure he had anywhere else to go) but then again some daft contract renewals were being handed out at the time. One telling one was the head coach contract.

Emile Heskey - Liverpool and England. Coaches know what they are doing, fans think they do.

I've defended Clarke for a long time, I thought a numbe rof years ago he should have been our loose forward. Could have saved ourselves quite a few quid on Vinny Anderson.

I agree his play the balls can be slow but he can read a game, his passing game in general play in excellent as is his ability to link into the line outwide (something I would have liked to have seen more of if he had played 13). Also has a good kicking game.

Definately worth a place in the 17.

His Defence is a major part of his game our defence will be even better when he's back in the side.

its quite scandalous given his performance in the Challenge Cup Semi final and then not making the final that Wire Fans still roll out the "ship him out to anyone who will have him" line.

We have no reason anymore to still have the ridiculous Boo Boys moaning about our own players.
but it seems some people prefer to have a squad of their own personal favourites rather than a well balanced succesful side

Are you for real. Smith didn't have anyother option back then as Cunningham, Robey and Newton were not available. That hooker from huddersfield was still suspended and all the other english hookers who are now playing regular SL hadn't even broken through back then.

Clarke got into the england team by default and Cullen was stupid enough to offer him a contract that was two years too long and far too lucrative. As it stands we are stuck with Clarke until the end of 2011. I would suggest that the only way he will get any further extension with warrington is if he takes a rather large pay cut. As previous posters have suggested Clarke will be nothing more than a back up second row, loose forward or third choice hooker - incidentally his play at hooker is far too slow, largely predictable and too many wayward/hospital passes.

Would you say that Clarke, if fit, would get into the England squad now? No he wouldn't, nowhere near.

Grix every day of the week for me, hugely underrated and has so much more to offer than Clarke.

Clarke would be useful to the likes of Harlequinns, Salford or even the Crusaders. Unfortunately warrington have moved on from the likes of Jon Clarke.

Clarke gave great service when we were battling to stay in the league when Paul Cullen was installed as head coach and I can remember Clarkey putting in some great efforts, however like i say times have changed and so have warringtons requirements in terms of playing staff.

Let's just get something straight here.

Newton was dropped in the series against the Kiwi's and Clarke was brought in.

Higham only went to the World Cup because Clarke got injured. He has said himself that Tony had confirmed to him he was going to be picked (before he was Warrington coach).

I beg to differ, I clearly remember at the time that for various reasons Robey, Cunningham and Newton all said they weren't playing for england in that particular competition and effectively that made Clarkey the only choice unless Smith went for a complete rookie.

I remember watching that series and in every single game all that clarkey did was bend over pick the ball up and play it left or right nice and simple. Smith knows his limitations and made sure that Clarkey stuck to them. He is a Hooker of very limited ability is Clarkey, I much prefer him in the pack.

And like i stated earlier i think he would do a fantastic job for one of the teams that are currently in the lower reaches of SL.

rlLINKrl




rlLINKrl

Apolgy accepted.

ok fair play i got it wrong about Newton, although if he was badly out of form like the article suggests then Smith couldn't possibly pick him.

Lets not forget here that Cunningham and Robey had made themselves unavailable, if either one had agreed to play them Clarkey would have been first out in favour of Newton and Cunningham or Robey.