The game against Celtic was the first all season (i think) and possibly for a while, where we have used just one hooker all game.

Now we know Fisher can last a whole game for Rovers, he used to do it all the time for us and it seems like Rovers now spell their hookers just because other teams do it.

I cannot see what benefit having one of your subs as a hooker brings, especially when the player isn't a specialist hooker (ie Fitzhenry) As a team, I feel Hull KR lose so much when they take him off.

The trade off seems to be Fishers improved passing, kicking game and general knowledge and experience of the hooking role, for a winger playing hooker who scoots from dummy half once maybe twice per ten tackles.

I don't think, at Fitzhenrys stage in his career, he has the ability to learn a new position to Super League level, especially one so different to his natural role. This isn't a Fitzy bashing thread, I just think he's a winger and should be played there, not hooker!

So does anyone else hope Morgan keeps faith with playing Fisher all game, or can anyone else see the benefit in having one of the replacement spots taken up in this way?

I agree with you there Fitz is no hooker.
If we need to spell Fisher its got to be Ben C.

Was a decision made on the opponents being Celtic when i interviewed him after the game.

The down side to Fisher doing the full 80 is that if he is targeted by big men running at him he will tire & with that goes is quickness of thought. Saints are lucky that in Cunningham they have not only a top class hooker but when he is spelled by Roby he is big & strong enough to come back anywhere in the pack if needed. I do like the way Justin mixes up the side according to our opponents but it is also dictated by the stenghts (or lack of )in our squad. I think that he would have developed Kirk Netherton in that role if he would have stayed but now I think it would be better to persevere with Ben Cockayne. The other option is to use Murrell as he hits well above his size & can fit into the pack as well.

Listening to the radio on Saturday it sounds like Scotty could do with a week off.

Doesnt the same thing happen to the halfbacks though?

They don't get spelled. The fullback doesn't get spelled and he spends most of the game chasing kicked balls and running them back up the field into tacklers!

If we dont sign a hooker next season I think Scott Murrell will be our 9 with Fisher as interchange. Galea at 13 and a new 2nd row

No way for me, Murrell's not quick enough for this position and is a far more effective 13.
Charlie is good off the bench at 9 and gives a lift to the team when he comes on that seems to be missing from his game when playing from the start.

Murrell isn't fit enough to be a 9, you could see that in the Quins game (and even in the Hull game). Fish should be starting hooker for the rest of the season and play as much game time as possible, Cockayne could come off the bench if he's not being used elsewhere.

If we're going to kick on and improve next year I do think we need an interchange hooker to compliment Fish. I don't know who, but that's Justin and the coaching staff's job to find one!

Why do we NEED another hooker though? Why not have 2 scrum halves in the 17, one to compliment Dobson?

To me, it just seems a waste. It's been proven many times in the past that Fisher can do 80 minutes so whats the benefit in bringing him off and putting a worse player there?

for a relatively small member of the team the hooker probably does the most tackling. With it been a pivotal position, imo, it is only sensible that u should interchange them. I personally think we need a starting hooker, because i think fisher is very effective coming off the bench

Get someone who can play both half back and hooker. Some one like Brad Drew; but younger and English.

Does ye know of such a person?

Alas none spring to mind.

I'm all for playing 2 hookers as long as it's an effective partnership (like Roby/Cunningham). When we play Fitz there he doesn't bring enough to compensate for what we lose when Fish is off the pitch. If we can't find the right player though we should stick with Fish for 80 mintues so I agree with you to some extent.

Tommy Lee?

Hookers make on average 3 times more tackles than a half back due to half backs generally defending on the wing whilst a Hooker will be involved in most of what comes down the middle, even as second or third man in the tackle.

Matty Smith of Celtic/Saints? More of a half than a hooker, though.

Spaven might be ready to challenge for a place in the 17 next year, hopefully.

TBF i'd take him to be more of hooker these days. At full strength i reckon Celts would go with Quinn at 6, Van Djik at 7 and Smith at 9.



May well be. Hasn't always been at his best in the reserves this season but is very talented nonetheless and could be ready for the step up next season.

Like you i very much hope so, the more young British players playing SL the better imho.

Start with Fish at hooker, if he needs a spell Cockayne can play there, if not Fish can play 80 minutes. It is not necessary to have two hookers in the 17. Other teams might because they have two very different types of hooker in their squad but that doesn't mean we have to.

A replacement "hooker" on the bench, for us, limits our options and weakens the bench.

i would never pay for sex? lmao

It allways costs in the long run

oh yeah....good point. I am leaving her lmao

Interesting that you put a question mark at the end of your statement.