Rhyse Martin is good and would improve our goal kicking. But im concerned that we are becoming overloaded with back rowers.

We don’t need Martin for kicking.
We have Thewlis Drinkwater (perhaps) and Ratchford who can all kick goals it the 80% plus bracket.

Poor recruiting and I’ll just give up on winning SL in 25 if that’s the direction we’re heading.
Let him go Hull FC or Leigh.

I would say Holroyd has been one of the brighter light with his tackling. Thank goodness he played last night.

Thought he was good in the Wigan game but didn't see anything stand out from his last night performance. Perhaps may see something in a rewatch, in defence though doubt it certainly seriously doubt anything in attack.

Still think Martin would be an improvement for a year if we lose Nicholson but no real great desire one way or another.

Agree with you on JT and really happy to see his improvement, but Drinkwater and Ratchford shouldn't be in our 1st 17 if Hayes comes back anything like, and im definitely sure Drinkwater isn't a consistent 80% kicker

Agree with this. Nicholson and Holroyd work hard in defence but offer little in metres and line running and are giving away at least 2 stones to the majority of back rowers. Martin and Fitzgibbon can both add to attacking lines and have the experience. Holroyd will come and we are losing Nicholson anyway.
I really hope we don’t offer a contract to Drinkwater, reduced or otherwise, as cover for Leon Hayes. Leon has a serious injury to overcome and we should not push him too much next season. Jackson Hastings and Williams at half back would be ideal.

Shakes head in disbelief at the thought of signing Rhyse Martin.. I thought the club were moving away from signings like this.. it’s shows a lack of ambition and a level of mediocrity which the club seems to accept..

If you think that Hastings is the solution then I feel you will sadly be disappointed.

I think offering some of the players extentions to early in the season does not help. Could waited till nearer May at the time and still can’t get my head around why Ratchford gets years playing contract.

Beyond the call of duty Bunkaib

Feel worse for you UR with you saying Chez Rico is closest to Salford to our other neighbours, you must have had a bit of stick.

Ha ha I'm getting it from all angles

If I were playing Jeopardy and the answer came up Jackson Hastings then I feel the question would be.

Who would be one of the best players to bring in to fight with his own young teammates and destroy the dressing room?

The club refused to offer Daryl Clark an extra year last season allowing him to sign for Saints, with whom he scored a hattrick for at the weekend and the club decided to replace him with Brad Dwyer who lasted 2 months at the club. The club has been lacking ambition for the last 10 years.

I'm not an apologist for the Club and I usually get your posts whilst not always in agreement but this is codswallop.

Feels good doesn’t it.

Not correct.
Wire offered more money than Saints and a deal that has him playing and mentoring the young no.9s as a coaching role.
He saw himself as a no9 not a no14 and flat turned it down and approached Rushy and offered himself.
Rushy said Clark wasn’t even on their radar even though they were desperate for a 9, he never thought he’d leave Warrington.
Rushy told him they can’t match Warrington’s current deal.
That came straight from Rushys mouth at the Coldplay concert.

And for context his hat-trick was against London

....and up to that point he's hardly been setting the world on fire

I’m a huge fan of Clark, and we missed some of his direct play at Wembley, but I’m not convinced that we’re a worse team by letting him go. I think LTS’s point is that we let a great player go, and our intentions were to replace him with Brad Dwyer. I think we can all agree that the planning of that is mind blowing.

I’ve said before about Sam Powell and how I was unimpressed at first but can see the impact that he is having, I would question the logic of not starting him though. He’s a tight defender and really effective at slowing momentum, but doesn’t really offer much in attack. In the games that matter at the back end of the year (if we can avoid a slump…) I would be tempted to start him, try and get some control of the ruck speed and let Walker loose after 20/25 mins and try and change the pace.

But back to the point at hand, Powell was apparently available, and we all knew it when Leeming signed. But we went with Dwyer. LTS’s point about illogical recruitment is valid.

Fair enough but this isn't what LTS posted, it may have been inferred.

For a start he states that the club replaced Clark with Dwyer which in turn shows the Club's apparent lack of ambition that we've had for the last ten years. This isn't the same thing as "illogical recruitment" and so isn't a valid accusation IMO surely the Club decided that Walker deserved his chance as a starting 9 and the rest follows on.

BTW we have had plenty of examples of illogical recruitment, (it's part of who we are unfortunately), but I don't think that this is it and for the record I'd have preferred Clark to stay on but as an interchange.

I’m guessing you haven’t seen many Leigh games in the last few weeks.

Don’t get me wrong UR, I would love Clark to be the bench man and play 10 minutes at the end of each half, but he’s not that player. He’ll want to start, want to get in the England frame and he’s not doing that as a back up.

And RD, I’ve seen quite a bit of Leigh actually this season, and Dwyer has been fine. But still very ineffective in defence. No doubt a live wire in attack when the packs on the front foot, but let’s face it he’s no better than any other 9 in the competition. By that I mean that if they swapped him with Matt Parcell, Chris Atkin, Sam Powell even, those clubs would feel short changed. And they aren’t in the top bracket of hookers. He doesn’t appear to be a leader of men, no real kicking game, even his distribution is hit and miss and that’s the principle job.

This BW sums up the point I was trying to make and where LTS's post falls down (IMO).

We (the Club) surely didn't come to the conclusion that we would all be better off 'just' swapping Clark for Dwyer.

I'm not sure what it is I've said wrong.

Clark leaving was a financial decision. The club offered Clark a 2 year deal and wouldn't give him 3 years. That is 100% true. The club wanted to keep him but not at the expense of a 3 year deal. The same thing happened with Chris Hill.

They therefore, by not offering Clark an extra year, allowed him sign at Saints who were offering him 3 years. When it became apparent that he had agreed a deal at Saints, the club then chose to sign Brad Dwyer.

I don't see how the statement about Walker subsequently then becoming our starting hooker holds any relevance or significance. They still replaced Daryl Clark with Brad Dwyer. Burgess didn't rate Dwyer and then signed Sam Powell to replace him.