Totally agree with what you suggest,the team would be far more balanced with Hardaker at FB and Sam at HB.

Sam at FB is good,but when he is there and Sinfield is at HB the ball gets turned inside every time. But what I would do is Hardaker FB with Sam at HB ,Lockers at SR and Sinfield at Lf for his kicking game.

I will more than likely get shot down in flames for these suggestions,but a different opinion is my choice to which I am entitled.

NB . Widdop would be my other HB,I think him and Sam could strike up a really good partnership.

IMO Sinfield and Tomkins combined well in last season 4N considering they have played together very little. Sinfield has not played 13 for a couple of seasons now so will play in the halves. Tomkins is our most dangerous attacking player and needs to be given as much ball in the right areas as possible. Successive Wigan coaches have thought this is best achieved by playing him at fullback.That is where he will play IMO. Just leaves who will partner Sinfield. Chase has had a poor season with off the field issues but McNamara seems to have invested a bit in him and will probably stick by him. Wrongly IMO.

Sinfield and Sam in the halves for me. I think both have sufficiently good rugby brains to strike up a partnership. Let Hardaker deal with kicks, he's exceptionally proficient at this and whilst he's no Sam in broken play he's no slouch either.

the problem with hardaker is every other aspect of his game.

Think you are vastly undertaking hardaker who for me is a brilliant player. His only real weakness is his pass sometimes,

"UNDERTAKING",is he doing a bit of moonlighting on the side.

possibly true, but from what ive seen he fails to chime into the line as a fullback and rarely poses a threat unless hes returning the ball from a kick. but his broken field running is admittedly impressive. i think i put alot of weight on the line chiming being a wigan fan. but that can be remedied with time/pre season training.

The only exclusive thing about Atherton is the probation office

I think Sinfield and Tomkins would be a great partnership, but i also think Sam would be more effective at scrum half rather than stand off.

I think that might be the nail on the head. Hardaker does join the line well in attack, but he isn't the attacking threat that Sam Tomkins is, wherever you put him.

My worry with putting Sam Tomkinsd back at 6 is that while he'd no doubt be effective there, he is going to be a little easier to mark and predict standing at first or second receiver than he is floating behind the attacking line and choosing his moments to appear. He'd still be a threat, but I think it'd blunt him a bit. It's a pity as I think Hardaker is fast becoming an exceptional player (look at where he was 14 months ago, and is now only not England's best full back because he has England's best player in front of him in that position) but at the moment our attacking threat, of necessity, must be built around getting the ball into Tomkins' hands in the areas he can do most damage. He'd get more ball at 6, but I still think he's a bigger threat from full back.

I think what worries me most about this thread is Leeds and Wigan fans saying nice things about each others' players. If this carries on we might end up with people actually putting aside partisan loyalties and getting behind the national team. A disturbing thought.

I would hope that it wouldn’t be beyond us to structure the team to include both.

I can understand that moving Tomkins forward would blunt that part of his game, but surely it wouldn’t be two difficult to put in place some sets and set plays where Hardaker moved forward and Tomkins stepped back and played as the extra man chiming into the line.

We can get a bit hung up on numbers on backs in this country, Imagine defending against Burrow, Roby and Sinfield, with Hardaker and Tomkins offering options.

The problem being that you then find yourself with Hardaker in the line in a play-making role which he doesn't do at Leeds let alone Test level.

The trouble in any event with doing it in set plays, is that they are set, and hence not the spontaneous off-the-cuff stuff that is sort of the point of having a full back who selectively comes into the line when he sees an opportunity. You might get away with it Sinfield was at 13, which is the only way I can see you getting all 5 of those players you mention on the pitch at once. But I don't think that's where he will play.

You see, again, I wouldnt pay so much attention to who is playing 13. 13 is just a number, its job is whatever you give it. Defensively both Roby and Sinfield are capable of defending at 13, especially for short periods.
With regard to set plays im not so much talking about having plays set out as an ordered play, its more about creating situations where you have options and you know where those options will be, You have Burrow and Roby switching between hooker and first receiver, Sinfield organising and directing play at 2nd receiver, with Tomkins and Hardaker as your runners. There you have set up a situation where they need to be tight around the ruck against 2 of the best running hookers in the game, at first receiver you have a player capable of either switching it back inside to a forward, creating a break themselves, or swinging out wide, If they do swing it out wide, they can either go to 2nd receiver in Sinfield, or behind the back to Tomkins. If Sinfield receives it he can out wide to the 3/4ers or he looks to his two runners in Hardaker and Tomkins. If it goes to Tomkins he can run himself, go further wide to the 3/4ers or back inside to the extra runner in Hardaker.

At each stage we give ourselves an extra option, creating doubt in the mind of the defence and giving two world class broken field runners more space

Perhaps its the GF rings that get in his way when catching the high ball?

regardless of the reason, or your incredible wit, his problems are there to see.

I don’t really have a problem with him. I just don’t think it will make vast difference anyway, but we will see.