haha yeah we will but i think carvell is back so cooper will probs push into second row and carvell back at prop, weve both got two players with broken noses should be a tough encounter i carnt call it

Flanagan is looking very solid when he is on,gives us some nice competition for places in the pack and some options there to

I was pretty shocked how big he's gone, he's a big unit and find it crazy that Royce said he would fill the hooking role if robes gets injured.

Hohaia was always first call for that, as evidenced by the fact that Hohaia covered for Robes when Robes was injured.

Royce said he can play hooker a d behind the scenes it was said to be moores replacement.

Surly he would t have moved the experinced halfback he'd signed to hooker.

I only heard - or rather read - Royce once say that Flanagan can turn his hand to hooker if need be but it isn't his favoured position. I got the distinct impression from both Royce and Flanagan (via their interviews at different times) that cover for Robes would come from Hohaia and not Flanagan as Hohaia had played at hooker in either GFs or internationally, I can't remember which. It's likely that Flanagan would have only been called on to step in if both Robes and Hohaia were out injured.

I think it may have been me who said Flanagan had his best games at Wigan at hooker.

Royce stated he can play hooker when we signed him www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/14201618

Royce stated he can play hooker when we signed him www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/14201618

Quote ="brook40"Royce stated he can play hooker when we signed him www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/14201618'" Yep. I thought that was the case: Quote [i"He is tough and versatile, can play in the middle or on an edge and can cover at hooker if need be." [/i'" "If need be" - at a push in other words. I thought that's what I'd read.

Quote ="brook40"Royce stated he can play hooker when we signed him www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/14201618'" Yep. I thought that was the case: Quote [i"He is tough and versatile, can play in the middle or on an edge and can cover at hooker if need be." [/i'" "If need be" - at a push in other words. I thought that's what I'd read.

sure he has played on the wing and 6,7 and 9 when in wigans under 20's...

rogues will know more obviously

I can't recall him playing on the wing or at 7, but he has played second row and (I think) loose forward.

Isn't his favoured position 13? Dont think saints have ever filled the void from Sculthorpe, Flanagan could be the man

Part of the reason for that is that we've had a succession of coaches who have refused to play Wilkin there.

Why tho?

Perhaps they have all thought that he wasn't very good there? He might think he is, and occasionally he might be, but perhaps the coaching staff don't. Or they think he better suits second row? (to put a positive spin on it!) Royce started with him playing at 13 last season, until injuries began to bite hard and he was used as reinforcement elsewhere. But Wilkin never went back into 13 after that so far as I can recall. If it had just been one coach then it could be called a preference but it has been more than one so there must be something in Wilkin's game that persuades coaches not to play him at 13.

It is strange that nearly every coach didn't seem to like wilkin at 13. I can see royces way of thinking as he liked the extra prop at 13 ( I also like this) but as you've said, other coaches ain't played him there.

When we signed Flanagan, i didnt really remember a great deal about what he was like going forward, from his time at Wigan.

However, what i did remember is always thinking he was a good defender, and he has only cemented that view whilst playing for us, and he cant half hit.

I think all three of Royce's recruits are spot on.

Just a pitty Royce wasn't

How is the membership at the Royce Simmons fan club going?

But all those coaches have wanted a workhorse, rather than a ball player, at 13 really. Scully was starting to miss a lot of matches and his stats for the year don't suggest him being much of a playmaker in 2006 for Andersons first full season (17 appearances, 4 tries, 2 assists, 10 attacking kicks) compared to 2004 when he had 22 appearances, 10 tries, 19 assists, 73 attacking kicks (2003 has similar stats).

So maybe it's just unfortunate timing for him and the style of play the coaches have wanted?

I ain't got clue why nearly every coach prefers him as a second row. I could understand maybe one not wanting him a 13 but not all.

i remember watching flanagan in a saints Vs Scum clash at KR and thinking he was a tackleing machine and he was still a youngish player, couple of years down under seem to have really helped his alround game, i really like the lad and can only see him getting better

Mark was very impressive in his short-spell at Wigan. Brian Noble was very keen for him to sign and Wigan even forked out a fee for the lad. I was surprised Wigan didn't follow through in re-signing him after his impressive stint at Wests. I think the club are more excited by Burke and Hughes. Saints have got him on a really cheap deal & I could see Mark spending a significant portion of his career at Langtree Park.

Noble left it too long to give him a chance which was strange considering he'd paid a fee for him and by the time he did it was too late. He was very good at the back end of 2009 for us but Wests had already made their move.

He'll go very well for Saints IMO. He's a real worker highlighted by him making over 60 tackles in a game at Knowsley road for us back in 09 and he's got some cracking ball skills.

I'd have loved him back at Wigan but we simply couldn't fit him in.