Murphy or Hampshire for me.

Well seeing as he wasn't taking goalkicks suggests he had a tweak, with that in mind he had a solid game.

We all know how good he is under Sinfield's bombs!

So he drops a bomb and should never get a shot again? Apart from that drop he had a very good game that night. Whilst I appreciate the drop was crucial the kid is a much more natural modern fullback than Richards.

As I said I thought Richards was solid tonight, but his lack if pace and vision really shuts down our attacking options.

Our entire attacking game is based around the second phase play. Richards at fullback takes that out of our game and against a good defence it costs us games.

I think firstly we should be looking at the fact we made poor metres in the forwards battle for 70 minutes tonight, we really did struggle to break out of our forty due to Leeds line speed and stopping us dead. Neither Murphy / Hampshire would have altered that.

I can understand Wane's thoughts on Richards at FB tonight as the alternative would have been peppered all night with bombs. Instead Sinfield know's Richards will field those all day long and arched them to Ryan Hall instead.

Let's face it, tonight was a good effort but could have really been on the back of a hammering due to the amount of possession against us (Ryan Hall should have had a hat-trick in the first half but for sloppy last passes).

Then we need a plan B for when Sam is injured given, as I understand it, Hampshire just doesn't play FB and Sinfield would have thought it was Christmas if Murphy had been able to be recalled from loan.

In fact we need to vary things more than we do anyway IMO. We need the half backs particularly Smith to take the line on more themsleves so we offer a more varied threat than we do. It's a bit too predictable when Sam does play and trying to play the same way when he doesn't isn't going to work.

Given the alternatives Richards was the correct choice. That wasn't the problem. The tactics were.

Spot on. The forwards did a pretty good job defensively, but as you say they weren't making the hard yards, and we were too often kicking from inside our own half.

His change of pace these days is ridiculously slow. Never beat the first man last night on any occasion. The attempted tackle for the first Leeds try was embarrassing aswell.

Ask on the Salford board what they think of Murphy. He's been shoved out onto the wing for them and last night against Warrington he was by some distance the worse performer on the pitch.

Richards would seem the only relaistic option to fill in at full-back if Tomkins is missing.

I think it's safe to say without Sam playing and now Hock's gone, any creativity and attacking threat is long gone. Too predictable, how many times did Leeds close down the 'second phase play' because it's clear they trained to do that all week, because sadly that's all we have to offer in attack

I think he hurt himself tackling Watkins early on. After the first try he received all manner of strapping while the kick was being taken.
He then was clearly unable to run it in for a good 15 minutes or so. There was one point where he could have made the break down our right but just gave it to Goulding because he didn't have it in him.
He's solid as anything though, certainly compared to someone like Murphy so at present, I'd have him there if Sam isn't available for a big game.

Don't get this at all.
Richards wasn't kicking goals no doubt due to a fitness problem of some kind.
Anyone at fb who's not fully fit isn't going to come into the attacking line at full pace. Pat nullified Sinfield's kicking so much so he then went after Charnley where he found more success.

pat was by far the 1st choice fullback last night due to sinfields kicking threat.pat maybe old school but solid as a rock.