Had a fairly decent game last night, but I still think that he shouldn't be in the side for next season. We've just got too many grafters in the team and he's one of them. Plays at 13 but plays like a prop, which imo is affecting the team and how we play in attack. We need another ball handler in at 13 to give us more options with ball in hand. Whiting or Washbrook would be fine there for us. For next season I still see him being in the team at loose man, so there for who is going to miss out?

With the rumours of Tickle going at the end of next season I'd like to see a back 3 of;

Burnett
Fitz
Washy/Whiting

But can honestly say that I see it lining up more like;

Fitz
Manu
Radders...

discuss...

berrigan to 13 for me.

Radders should not be at LF. We'll have enough presence in the pack next year to mean we can go with a ball-handling LF. Radders should be cover for prop and 11/12 next season IMO.

don't want tickle to go either what ever he's like off the pitch. with some of his buddies leaving i hope. then next season last chance saloon to grow up a bit.

Works for me Mrs. B, Where's the shoes by the way

For me, the pack next season could be pretty good, if we re-sign a couple more players.

At prop, I would be happy with Cusack, Dowes, Lauaki and O'Meley, as first choice, with Thackray and Maloney as cover/instead of Dowes. King's had a few good games, but I don't know if he can continue this good form and would be worth having.

Then, in the second row we can choose from Fitz, Tickle, Manu and Burnett, all of whom I am happy with.

Then at Loose Forward I would play Washbrook as a first choice, with Lee there if Washbrook is unavailable.

I would keep Whiting as a centre, I think he plays well there and gives 100% effort, and he can be cover at 6 if Horne is injured/at fullback, or as a cover fullback if both Tansey and Horne are out.

Looks pretty good to me. That's what I would do, anyway.

Now flame me.

Not a fan at all of Radford but I thought he stood up to be counted for last night and put in a fantastic effort, some quality off loads aswell.

Every single one of his offloads came after he was dominated in the tackle. Fair enough, he got the ball away, but it doesn't really add anything if you're looking to offload virtually before contact has even been made. The one time he did actually run properly, he went through two defenders, landed on elbows and knees, and got a quick play (!) from which we gained good ground. Why did that only happen once? He showed he has the ability, yet he was still insistent on turning his back into the tackle at every other opportunity.

Defensively, he was terrible. Constantly run through by the forwards (and Burrow, FFS), ending up on the wrong side of the tackle and struggling to get set at marker. Added to that, he spent more time laid on the ground for no reason than anyone I can remember. Every couple of minutes he seemed to be sprawled out, even when he hadn't been involved in the tackle.

And that told me

To be fair, I wasn't obviously watching the game as close as you.

Just a workhorse imo.Tackled well but missed some too.

When Ryan Hall got dumped into touch by Raynor on tackle 5 at the resulting PTB it was Radford that put his hand up

The thing was though he put his hand up to play the ball essentially taking himself out of the next 2/3 tackles even though we were pinned in our own 20

Dont get me started on the whole Radford at 1st reciever ploy which crept back into our game yesterday

Why take a class player out of his best position and put him somewhere that you already have some good players.