Re: Hooker? : Sun Jan 28, 2018 6:43 pm  

Is it possible that neither get in and we try Rogers lad or someone else especially against some of the bigger packs. Do you need a small nippy hooker or a very good utility player who can play a bit.

Re: Hooker? : Sun Jan 28, 2018 6:59 pm  

woolly07 wrote:

Is it possible that neither get in and we try Rogers lad or someone else especially against some of the bigger packs. Do you need a small nippy hooker or a very good utility player who can play a bit.

That's a good point. I would like to see Hallas and Butterworth both get plenty of game time at hooker this year, different type of players.
When Sam was in the Leeds academy with my lad, he's a year younger, he played a bit at prop. I think his game is a lot about his work rate, which is exceptional, Butterworth looks like he's a more natural hooker. Think there is room in the 17 for them both.

Regarding my lad, I would say I'm probably his biggest fan and also his biggest critic. Getting the ball at first man is not where he is most effective, I would say maybe about 3rd man in the line, after a natural half back has done his bit first and he can try do his bit as a loose forward with a decent pair of hands. Only my opinion

Re: Hooker? : Mon Jan 29, 2018 8:12 am  

I would agree with you Roger on the small evidence I have seen. and we need that sort of threat away from the hooker/halves.

[Bullseye]

Re: Hooker? : Mon Jan 29, 2018 11:33 am  

I think all three hookers have their strengths and weaknesses. Shame we can't merge them to make one great hooker.

As has been said Hallas offers defensive solidity and a great workrate. Butterworth offers zip out of dummy half and the ability to create space when he engages the markers before passing. Halafihi has a great pass from dummy half that is quick and accurate.

It means it's good competition for places. Personally I'd start Hallas at hooker and have Butterworth come off the bench against tired opponents. Halafihi as backup.

[Bulliac]

Re: Hooker? : Mon Jan 29, 2018 4:55 pm  

Seems about right for the pecking order though, given the injury setback to Joe Keyes and the fact we haven't seen Chissy with a shirt on yet, I wouldn't be shocked to find one of those three in the halves for the opening game.

Re: Hooker? : Mon Jan 29, 2018 5:16 pm  

Butterworth looked good when he played at 7 against Fax last year. I'd prefer him playing there instead of Smith if Chisholm/Keyes aren't quite fit.

Re: Hooker? : Mon Jan 29, 2018 6:05 pm  

Hallas and Butterworth as starter and bench hooker for me. Hallas to distribute and control the ruck with Butterworth coming on and blitzing them down the middle when the defence is tired/on the back foot due to our forward momentum.

In terms of halves for the first game if Keyes or Chisholm aren't fit I'd personally like to see Milnes have a go with the fit halfback. So Milnes/Chisholm or Keyes/Milnes. See how he goes and it gives us a kicker if Keyes is out.

If both halfbacks are out for Round 1 I'd like us to use the same halfbacks when we won in pre-season in Smith/Minchella to keep a little consistency there.

Re: Hooker? : Mon Jan 29, 2018 7:07 pm  

Ahh, we can now start to dream about some consistency? Must mean we have a decent well balanced (relatively) uninjured squad that want to play for us. all hail chalo.

[Bullseye]

Re: Hooker? : Mon Jan 29, 2018 7:16 pm  

Must say it's great to be talking about the actual rugby again.

Re: Hooker? : Mon Jan 29, 2018 8:39 pm  

Bullseye wrote:

Must say it's great to be talking about the actual rugby again.

Evenin' all. Even as an outsider, it's great to read you doing so. The good ship seems a lot more buoyant now that it's not being sucked down the Alley-Alley-Oh. Good luck to all who sail in her.

A much happier read recently.

Now about this hopping into bed with Toronto thing......