I'd have him as a 3rd option, currently we have Wilkin but he is getting older and who currently takes the ball to the line?

Sure if we are lining up a replacement for walsh then don't sign him. But if we are just waiting and seeing, then why not.

I don't think he offers anything at all that we don't already have. Yes, he does occasionally take the line on, but no more effectively than Walsh does. He'll find a home at one of the current set of Middle 8 clubs, I should think.

Nowhere near good enough, light weight & offers an average kicking game only. Would take Fages all day long before OBrien. His employment tribunal is in next few weeks I read somewhere?

People go on about us making mediocre signings then claim that O'Brien is good enough, amazing stuff.

24 is still very young mate. Some players only start coming into their own in their mid 20's when they finally get settled somewhere.



I assume this is directed at Saddened, because I've said as a squad player.

That said, we are restricted by a salary cap and thus have to recruit 'some' players that can come in and do a job without costing the earth.

People bring up that we've got Walsh for next season but what does that mean? Look at his injury record, it's awful. Is it realistic that he can play every game next season? And Wilkin does a decent job when called upon but he's not a natural scrum half.

It's a sad statement of affairs, but he would certainly improve us.

He is not durable enough either. We need someone like Burns, but with legs.

He really wouldn't. Look at Warrington halves and it shows how poor O'Brien is in that he can't get a game over them. This season they've ran Myler, Ratchford, Bridge and Patton over O'Brien. Walsh is better than all of them bar Ratchford and he's only stepped in a few times as he's at full back most of the time. Burns the same. You're absolutely mad if you think he'd improve us.

As back up as another question but IMO O'Brien is no better than Charnock. If he's good enough for us then he'd be good enough for Warrington, but they're releasing him. If he's not good enough for a 6th place side he's not good enough for a top 4 side. There's a reason why he'll end up at one of the bottom sides of this league or in the Championship.

O'Brien is 24 next month. Fages just turned 21 and already has more SL experience than O'Brien.

Walsh is improving each week, albeit slowly. Hopefully he can start next season like he started last season, as the best 7 in the comp by far. No matter how good an off season GOB has, he is never going to be half the player that Walsh can be. People are right to compare him to Matty Smity, they are both journeymen who will never be anything more than average.

He would another shocker of a signing for 2016. I wouldnt touch him and I doubt any of the top clubs wouid touch him either.

He was poor in his spell with us as well.

He spent most of the time KO's as I remember

It was during his spell at the club that we actually looked a lot more cohesive as the rest of that season was a bit of a disaster, after realising that Lomax wasn't actually a half back. And he did get ko'd although to be fair they were malicious challenges that would have cleaned anyone out.

Posters are saying that Walsh is a better scrum half which is true but it was only a few weeks ago that people wanted him dropped he was that poor. I just think it would be nice to actually have some decent cover in the halves instead of relying on a second rower all the time.

Charnock's name as been chucked in the mix too, but lets face it, when the club was utterly desperate for a 7 last season, Brown still wouldn't pick him. And Cunningham will only pick him at 9. So I think we need to let go of the idea that he can cover in the halves.

And to say that Matty Smith is average is v unfair IMO. I hate the pies but he does a very good job for them and is now an international scrum half. He's like the Carrick of rugby league. Only later on will people realise he's actually a very decent player.

Anyway, it's made for an interesting debate were only Saddened agreed with me, ha!

I agree to .

Useful to have as cover.

Fages would not be cover, he'd be a replacement.

I don't think he's of the standard we want/need.
However, from watching him at Wire, he has imo improved a bit since his spell with us.

Salford might go for him. Leigh might try and get him if they lose Brierly.

Sweet lord, he's 24 and as average as average can be.

If he can't hold down a spot in the halves at Wire, who have arguably the worst half back combo in the top 8, then why on earth would we want him clogging up cap space?

Because it seems to be the level of signings we are making lately?

Who would you suggest as a third choice back up half?

This is someone who could spend 90% of a season not picked unless our halves get another terrible year of injuries.

If it's true we are after Fages then he will be back up half/hooker next season. Maybe even more of a rotation option with Burns/Walsh if either fall out of form.

If we are in for fages then thats a different matter, but I would not see fages as back up. He's more a first team choice for me. But Yes if we are definitely getting him then o brien would be a pointless acquisition.

Gary Wheeler

If that's all he is then he's a waste of cap space given we've also got Wilkin and Turner as back up halves who will also play elsewhere in the team.

This for me is the best option, Fages is decent for a young player and has years of improvement in him.

If we sign Fages, will we look to ship Burns out?

Fages is still very young, rapid and can cover full back, which given our recent luck there is a bonus. I have no idea what his full potential is, but he ticks all the right boxes for me. I like O'Brien but he is none of the above, he's a good goalkicker but we aleady have one.