You mean like Ellery Handley, Paul Sculthorpe and to lesser likes of Jamie Lyons and Jiffy?
These players were shoehorned in at any position that would allow them to get there hands on the ball in a team.
Jiffy was put in at GB fullback even though he had only played mainly at right centre for us.
Great players can play anywhere.

Big problem is that ratchford isn't GREAT, certainly not fit to lace the boots of those players you've just mentioned. Comparing him to jiffy is making my teeth itch

With Ratchford, it is hand (singular) on the ball, unfortunately. And he hardly ever passes. The four you mention are top quality, I'm don't think Ratchford belongs in that bracket.

Nobody is comparing Ratch and Jiffy???

Utility players can play anywhere. GREAT players(hanley, sculthorpe, lyon) play GREAT anywhere.

Ratchford remains an enigma, but on his day is a wonderful, wildcard player who can scatter defences in a way that few others can.

The problem we have is Sandow is another wildcard, off-the-cuff player and we can't pair two players of this nature in the halves. All my favourite halfback partnerships have had a straight man/funny man/good cop/bad cop element and the Gidley-Sandow combination is a good example of that. And, to be blunt, Ratchford's kicking and passing game isn't up to snuff for a half-back.

However, I'd agree we have to find a place for Ratch in the 17. Full-back gives him space, but he scares the willies out of me returning the ball in one hand, and is sometimes more laid-back than Perry Como in both attack and defence. Maybe loose-forward one day, but not yet, and our back-row options are looking very tasty at the moment anyway.

So, for me, he gets the centre spot vacated by Mr Atkins. And no, this isn't me induldging in some Ryan bashing, simply an acknowledgement that if we want all our gamebreakers on the pitch, someone has to make way.

I've only 2 positions in mind for Ratchford. One is at halfback and the other is loose forward.
Okay he needs to pack on another stone ideally, but very reminiscent of my all time fav loose forward John Pendlebury.
Ratch is nearer a John Pendlebury than he is a John Woods that I admit, but he's a million miles off a Allan Bateman or a Brian Johnson, so no at centre or fullback for me.

A lot of the posts on here seem to neglect the fact we have a season that will contain anything between 31 and 36 games, so it cannot be a case of 'first choice 17 plays until someone's form drops'.

Or, if it is, we will find ourselves at round 14/15 wondering why we have 7/8 injuries and why the guys coming in have no match sharpness and don't know the systems.

Ratchford is the new Grix, in that he is being written off while injured, on the evidence of a season where he was more or less playing injured throughout. His versatility will give us terrific options and flexibility later in the season. I would still play him at full-back more often than not, but he does need to be a bit more urgent in that position (unlike at year when he was, as I say, not fully fit). Still our best footballer when in the mood.

We do seem to have short memories here. Ratchford's last game was v. Saints at the end of the season. He produced a sublime bit of skill to put Jack Johnson in for a brilliant try (Johnson by the way looked a very good player). He is a top player.
Last year when Matty Russell was injured he seemed to be put down on this forum as was Rhys Evans.
God help you if you get injured.

Well said Smiffy and Browny.
Shame on many others.

I was watching back the 2012 and 2013 GFs and I was surprised at how poor Ratchfords' defence is. Anyone who thinks he can play in the middle six is a bit deluded.

He needs to earn his place back in the reserves as does Dodds. This club has made mistakes in the past by selecting players on the basis of reputation or the size of their salary.

Exactly my thoughts. He is a talent, but his defence is poor for me. Fullback is a no no, some shocking attempts at tackling last year. Good cover for the halves, But he would be better in the centres, back end of last year showed us that I think.

The best defence is attack. You complete and score, you will have done all the tacking you need.

Nope. The best defence is good defence. If the opposition don't score you won't lose. Simple as that. You earn the right to play by defending well - the Leeds game demonstrated that, as did Sunday.

For me Ratchford is cover at 6 and no more. With work on his defence and positioning he [ucould[/u be an outstanding full-back. At present he's probably the best centre we have at the club. I don't think anyone would split up the Gidley/Sandow combo unless it was needed to.

As said earlier in the thread, we've probably got the best squad depth since 2011 with a good mix of youth and experience too.

Erm, you need far better defence (assume you mean tackling) to be a centre than a full-back. Just as a quick illustration, Moon and Watkins made 466 and 403 tackles each last year, while Hardaker (generally thought of as a great defensive fullback) made 130.

I happen think Ratchford's defence is far better now than it was in 2012 or 2013. Players can work on things. Comparing with Shenton, an excellent defensive centre, shows Ratchford made 345 tackles with 51 misses last year, while Shenton made 403 tackles with 73 misses.

Theres the age old subject, if you're a fullback and having to make a or bust tackle, its usually because someone else has missed a tackle further up the field.

Can tell your from the School of Paul Cullen with comments like that...

Centre for me instead of Atkins. Absolutely no to loose forward.

On Ratchford, a quick look at his Opta 2015 stats and you'll find he isn't too bad on the missed tackle count and was far and away our chief try creator with 20. Nearest to him was 12.

Part and parcel of being a full back, last line of defence. You can't think 'oh I'll just let him through cos some clown already has'. We could debate ratchford's skills/best position all day but one thing is for sure he's a poor defensive full back who doesn't put his body on the line.

Best defence is attack, Brian Johnson is the all the proof you need.

No it isnt.. the best defence, is as someone has already pointed out, is a good defence.

This tired old cliche you keep trotting out doesnt really work when you're pinned on your own line having to defend repeat sets does it?

In 2011 we had one of our best defensive records ever, do you think it's just coincidence we also had the best attacking record ever?

Ratchford can be a big threat, but he is not a good fullback and does not have the play-making skills to be a top class half back. Unless he bulks up enough to have a future as a no 13 his best chance for us is in the centre, where a player with lesser ball-playing skills but with a good step and swerve can thrive.

A poor defense generally means camping out on your own line then gifting the opposition possession and repeat sets whether it be conceding penalties, drop outs, handling errors or simply kicking the ball back to the opposition after they have scored. Very draining plus without the ball it's pretty difficult to score.

A great defense means you're stopping the opposition further up the field and getting the ball back in more dangerous positions. You'll generally have more possession of the ball and you're less tired. If you have the players to capitalise on that possession then you'll score more points.

I think if someone commented that it was a bit chilly outside you'd have to argue that it's a lovely evening!

Ratchford is the third, maybe soon to be the fourth, best fullback at the club (behind Russell, Gidley and soon maybe Johnson). He's not in the same league as Sandow and Gidley at halfback. He's not big enough to play in the pack. He is however highly suited to playing at centre especially in a team who's best centre at the minute is a young forward 'filling in'.

Can someone explain what all this 'bulking up' is? A player will have an optimum playing weight, any weight above that will be to their detriment.