I had you as clear favorites, but with your injuries the game is 50/50 IMO, I hope for a reaction to our loss last week and we usually win one, lose one. The Wigan side still looks a good exciting side, the average age of that squad but be very low and you know that Wane will have them fired up. one of the most impressive things about Wigan is the way the young players seem to slot into the systems so well and not look out of place.

At Hull we are slowly getting there with our young player.

Keep an eye out for the slim, fit Feka, i'm sure he will get a good reaction from your fans.

Because one good game from that position doesn't mean it works. How many good games has he had from prop? Practically all of them! Flower is an excellent player; in fact one of the first names on the team sheet I would imagine, and will always 'do a job'. You could argue that Clubb did the same against Leeds. However, that I not the answer to our conundrum when Lockers doesn't play. Makeshift is not the long term answer given he is injured more and more these days. We need to find a solution that offers the same attacking structures as when O'Loughlin is there and, ultimately, that means the passing abilities of a half. Neither Flower or Clubb (or Farrell for that matter) offer that. Green would. You mention he may not have the defensive game for it and perhaps you're right. There's only one way to find out...

Should be fascinating. We should still have a stronger side than Easter Monday, and that turned out ok.
I read that he was thinking about Gelling at 1 - that could either be good or disastrous. Sarginson has played 1 pretty well in the past, and I think it's his best position.
Clubb is a prop. Farrell or Lever would both do a better job in the second row, and we would miss him at prop.

I disagree that he had 'plenty good games' at LF. I think for the most part he was totally wasted there, as is Clubb. It doesn't matter that he started at LF. He's not a LF anymore. Clubb started at centre but he's not that anymore either! The bottom line is you either like 'the extra prop at loose' approach or you don't. I don't. I have no problem if you do though. It's all opinion at the end of the day.

Regarding the rest of your post, I agree that Green wouldn't be a direct replacement for Lockers. No one in world rugby is, if we're being honest. Yes, we would lose some of the hard yards he does but against that we would have extra pace and a better kicking game from the pack, something Leeds often utilise to good effect when playing Sinfield there. Overall a loss, but not as great a loss as Flower, for example, with whom we lose a passing game, pace and any semblance of a kicking game whatsoever. Moreover we lose ALL our attacking structures as, almost without exception, they rely on Lockers passing game which Flower simply does not have. Defensively Flower is more akin to Lockers than Green so we would lose out there for sure. However we would gain by being able to play a more defensive Half back in Williams or Powell. Swings and roundabouts perhaps? I'd be happy to say a net loss defensively but maybe not as much as you're making out overall.

The simple fact remains that we aren't as good without O'Loughlin at LF. Nothing we have tried so far has come close to addressing this. I can't see how trying Green there would be a bad thing. If it doesn't work we are no worse off. If it does work at least we have a plan B for when Lockers is missing.

In this evenings daily tribute in the M,E,N about all things Salford it keeps the Blake Green to Salford rumour going, it also brings Andy Gregory in for his opinion on what is wrong with Salford.
Andy brings up an argument which I truly endorse, in it he says all the great teams are built round the holy Trinity of a scrum half, standoff and a loose forward working together.
Whilst that is something else in the make up of the Salford team, what he says next is interesting.
He goes on to say "Green is a talented player and he plays well but I wonder at times what his best position is, there are times when he looks like a loose forward".

It is interesting to hear the opinion of one of the greats, but I am a bit sceptical myself due to doubts about Greens defence.

I think it's two easy to forget there are two parts to rugby, attack and defence. I think everyone, me included, is more likely to pay attention to the team with the ball than the team without it. So we tend to have a much better idea of how everyone did in attack, but only remember things that stand out defensively (e.g big hits, try savers and rubbish tackling or positioning). Therefore we put a far greater emphasis on attack, sometimes believing players are roughly equal in defence as long as they aren't noticeably bad.

However, as someone who experiences the full range of rugby from small children to Super League and everything in between every week, I'm a big believer that you often can wing it in attack to an extent as long as the players run hard and keep hold of the ball. You can also get away with the odd poor attacker. You can never wing it in defence, and you certainly can't afford poor defenders, because they will be exploited. The opposition can target defenders far more than they can target attackers.

As such I seriously think the idea of throwing one our worst defenders into the middle of the pitch (ie where most of the play goes!) where our best attacker normally plays is a recipe for disaster. I'd stick McIlorum at loose and tell him to go out there and tackle his balls off.

If we can deal with what Hull throw at us in attack I'm plenty confident that a spine of:

FB Burgess
SO Green
SH Smith
H Williams (Sub Powell)
LF McIlorum

can get us through the line as long as the forwards lay a good platform. That spine has bags of talent even if it doesn't have Lockers' passing game

I agree apart from what you say about MM. Lockers is not only the link in attack but massive defensively. My reservation re MM at 13 is I am not sure he can be effective enough on attack. Six of one and half a dozen of the other.

That said I do think defense wins matches. I was pretty relaxed before the Saints game (strange for me!) because I had seen how many points their defense leaked in previous games so felt if we could keep them to a low score we'd win and we did.

Same applies here. Trouble is while MM at 13 may shore up the defence I am not convinced with the players we have missing we have the attack to score many points ourselves. Think we may have to put a potential loss down to too many injuries catching up with a new and inexperienced squad. I will refrain form a rant as to why it ought not to be a new and inexperienced squad and so more vulnerable to a few injuries.....because it just is whether I like it or not.

I won't mention it was stupid to sell Hansen either!

I think the options for loose forward should be looked at sooner rather than later, Lockers has hardly ever strung 2 matches together since the middle of last season and the present trend of play 1 miss 3 may prove to be the norm in the future.
It is only during the last 3 seasons that Lockers distribution and organising abilities have improved to the high level they are now, prior to Madge Lockers used to play on the right hand side and you never saw him on the left side of the field. In my opinion it was Madge who made Lockers the more rounded player that he is today.

The only player in the present team who has the engine to perform the Lockers role in my opinion would be Ginger Farrell , he can do the 80 min and will tackle all day. Lack of size is something that has been levelled at Farrell in stopping him from becoming a truly great second row. I think in time he could excel at loose forward and grow into a fine leader as well.

In my OP I mentioned Green to 13 for the those two reasons, attack and defence.
Green would offer a lot in attack and although he's missed a few 1 on 1 tackles recently he wouldn't face many of those playing 13.

Defence wise, I think we must play a front row with the maximum amount of power we have. Clubb as prop is very powerful. We are light of Flower and Pettybourne and I do think it's something that needs looking at as to whether we diminish the props even more by playing one at 13.
We also need to get more players going in as 3rd man to the legs (ankles) to bring opposition forwards down. Peacock especially once going into contact spins and goes backwards. Against us he made vast mtrs going backwards as there was no one there to take his ankles. Deacs & Tommy did it well and we need someone to do it consistently now.

I can see why many would like MM at 13 but again it would lessen the power of the front row if he were removed. Also he hasn't the ball skills or pace Green has.
My overall concern is the front row. They were well beaten at Leeds and we need to rectify that for next week in Manchester.

Bilko is Wish FM to have commentary on there as Latics are at home tonight.?

Some interesting stuff on this thread and I think there is merit in much of what is being said. Personally, I would have no objection to trying either Green or MM as I think both have their merits and we have enough cover both in the halves and at hooker. The one thing I don't want to see, however, is this insistence of running with an extra prop at LF as it simply doesn't seem to suit our style of play. Alas I fear that is exactly what we will get!

Just on the suggestion that Farrell could be the long term answer. I can't see it myself, I'm afraid, unless he significantly ups his passing game. He's a 'heads down' type of player and, on the very rare times he actually passes the ball, the quality of pass often leaves a lot to be desired. Good runner of the ball that he is, I've said for some time that he would reach another level if he could learn to release the ball occasionally. Apart from anything else, it would at least put some doubt in the defenders minds whereas, at the moment, they can more or less commit to the tackle with no fear of being beaten by the ball.

Looking at Bilko's site it's on Wish FM and BBC Humberside

It definitely needs addressing. It only takes a quick look at our form over the last couple of seasons to see how heavily reliant we are on him. WCC aside, we haven't lost with Lockers in the side since Leeds away last March, and we've lost 10 games since then. Over the last couple of seasons I make it P28 W24 L3 D1 with Lockers and P21 W11 L10 without him.

As a lot of our play uses the loose forward as an extra pivot I'd prefer to have Green or MM there (I keep changing my mind as to which) rather than another prop. If it was to be Green I don't have an issue with him defending in the middle as he will be protected there and it is unlikely he would have to make 1 on 1 tackles like he has to out wide. Maybe this is a little over critical but it does concern me that we loose so much when SOL isn't playing and Wane should be ensuring the attacking structure is adaptable enough to compensate.