Re: Clarke : Mon Mar 08, 2010 5:01 pm  

Snaggletooth wrote:

Clarke breaking into the current squad is a joke. His wayward passing and none movement from the play of the ball would set us back two years. Get him fit and ship him out. Not good enough for this squad and never good enough under Cullen or Lowes. He is only here because Cullen gave him a healthy deal that cant/wont be matched.

And Smith picked him for international rugby! And played him.

"Wayward" passing? You seen Higham's rubbish?

Re: Clarke : Mon Mar 08, 2010 5:03 pm  

I would have Clarke in over Higham. Can't be arsed listing the reasons because people seem to dislike the player for no good reason and any explanation is thus rendered pointless.

Re: Clarke : Mon Mar 08, 2010 5:12 pm  

clarke is a good player what gets unnoticed but i think you could see from last season that mickey higham is a better hooker as plays the ball quicker so we get better play. if clarke comes back into 17 it will be instead of vinnie. why change a team what is in such good form??

Re: Clarke : Mon Mar 08, 2010 5:16 pm  

I`ll repeat what ive said about Clarke in the past, i`d have him at 13 where he`s played well for us in the past. I don`t think his distribution from 9 is good enough or quick enough to compliment the style of rugby that were now playing, were a team that likes to move the ball quickly and i don`t think Clarke compliments that at all, he would just slow it down in my opinion and give a lot of predictable passes that are easy to read as well as a few hospital passes.

Both Monaghan and Higham suit our tempo where as Clarke would slow it down, Jon Clarke does a lot of other things well and at 13 he would be useful running into the space between the pack and the centres, he could be a useful link player as he`s fairly quick plus he has a decent kicking game.

When Clarke is fit i`d go with a pack of Morley, Monaghan, Carvell, Westwood,Harrison and Clarke with a bench of Higham,Solomona,Simon Grix and Paul Wood, i`d just go with the one prop on the bench as Solomona can step up if need be at first reciever.

Leave it as it is at hooker, don`t try and fix what isn`t broken.

Re: Clarke : Mon Mar 08, 2010 5:24 pm  

mark_m wrote:

I would have Clarke in over Higham. Can't be arsed listing the reasons because people seem to dislike the player for no good reason and any explanation is thus rendered pointless.

This.

Clarke is still in the 17 every time for me, as it stands.

Re: Clarke : Mon Mar 08, 2010 8:01 pm  

yeh clarke should be in the 17 and rob wire is starting to make a good point there. clarke is good at organising us aswell. leave the hooker position alone it is working wonders with monas and higham

Re: Clarke : Mon Mar 08, 2010 9:47 pm  

I'd put him on the bench ahead of Vinnie, they are both utility players but I feel Clarke is the better of the 2.

Re: Clarke : Mon Mar 08, 2010 10:03 pm  

I'd have Clarke at 13, I think he's better than both the Andersons.

Re: Clarke : Mon Mar 08, 2010 10:34 pm  

he better than vinnie but not louis pushing it a bit there. shopuld be on bench as utility as he can play in alot of positions

[Fantastic Mr Catpiss]

Re: Clarke : Mon Mar 08, 2010 10:38 pm  

i dunno how happy i'd be with bringing clarke in, or anyone else now at 13, our improved defence in the middle of the park has come about due to binge making himself a fixture there. That'd take a huge part of our good form out of the team doing that.