Hankinson was sent out on loan so he can get some consistent game time. It would be a bit daft for us to then recall him because of a few injuries when it's possible he might only play one game. Especially when we've got players already in the squad that also need game time at some point otherwise they are going to go through another season with barely any rugby.

If it looks like Gildart and Manfredi are going to be out longer than expected then recalling Hankinson is sensible. If they return in a week or two as expected then Hankinson once again isn't going to play. It's only fair on the player to keep him at London unless it's absolutely necessary to recall him. The return of French provides a few more options too.

If our backline had caused us issues against Leigh I could understand the urgency to bring in reinforcements but actually they did alright. A bad read from Isa for one try but you occasionally get that from him no matter where he plays. Other than that they did pretty well and it was the forwards who didn't perform and were particularly dodgy defensively.

I suppose its how one sees Hankinson in the wider squad structure.
The player is the best goal kicker at the club and he has won us games with his goal kicking and we've lost games without him there.

As for the selection and where he plays. Right centre was his usual gig but he did play 2nd row at Salford one time. There has been great publicity from the club over Zac glad to be back at fb which begs the question who's to be right centre. When French is match fit where's he to play if Zac is at FB? Not right centre surely?

The bottom line for me is that Hanks must play given his goalkicking ability. Zac is, according to the club, this season's full back. French's position is now unknown. We are immediately missing French, Marshall, Manfredi, Gildart and Field. That could be one of the best five backs in SL and none are available v Wakefield.

With all these problems it does pose the question, Does Lam know his best 17? After that does he also know his best available given injuries and suspensions are inevitable?

I genuinely can't remember any game, apart from the grand final, where we've lost a game due to Zac's goal kicking. Even then I'd say that we have a better chance of winning the game with Zac and Gildart in the centres rather than Hankinson and Gildart.

In the 18, 19 and 20 seasons we would have won a grand total of three more games if we had kicked 100% of our conversions, which no one does. That's miniscule compared to the impact of picking a player who will help us score fewer tries or concede more tries. Just pick the best team based on playing ability then select the best goalkicker from that team. Right now Hankinson would get in on playing ability, the goalkicking would just be a bonus.

What worries me about this Hankinson's recall is how serious Gildart's injury is. First of all Gilly was missing for a couple of weeks and now there is no date on his return!

To me, Hankinson should come in v Wakefield at right centre with Bateman left centre. Bibby and Hanley wingmen.

As for the GF and Hanks. I firmly believe that had Hanks been on the right with Zac then we'd have won. We'd have scored more tries and kicked more goals with that as a right side.
Around four weeks before the GF we played Saints and beat them. The only thing that kept Saints in that game was Zac's poor goal kicking. It was obvious to me that if we went into a GF with Zac kicking we'd struggle. If we'd Hanks out there in the GF goal kicking alongside Zac then we'd have won with more than one score.

I don't think Hankinson is a better option than Bibby on the wing. By your logic we may as well try to sign that David Beckham wannabe winger who played at Saints. He was a good kicker. Shit winger though.

Pound to a penny this groin strain turns into a hernia op

Zak would love that

He is earning his money giving lockdown haircuts these days. His fancy Dan persona is probably more suited to hairdressing then rugby

I've certainly had enough of Lam's baseless optimism when it comes to predicting the length of injury rehab.

That is my worry and it would add a further 6-8 weeks to his recovery. I can see no other reason for recalling Hank.