There is insanity.... And then there is this thread!

Have to agree, if Smith and it's a big if intends to play Ratchford at half at any point then last night was the perfect opportunity, the Bridge selection was a big mistake he's not creative enough he should be left at centre.

Does Ratchford have a future at the HJ if Smith has no intention of playing him at half, we have signed Gidley and at the time we put in a big offer to sign Tomkins both fullbacks, what were Smith's plans for him? perhaps a move to centre.

I'm no fan of Ratchford as a FB.
He is currently an ideal HB and when he reaches 29/30 and looses a yard of pace, he ought to bang on a stone of muscle and become a loose forward.

Support play is a job more expected of the fullback than halfback. Halfback has to be constantly organising while a fullback has more free reign, so can support more. So if you think the support play, A RESPONSIBILITY OF RATCHFORD AS A FULLBACK, was poor, how would that be improved by moving him to halfback, where you want him to support on top of steering the entire team around?
Bridge was caught out for two tries from what I remember, the Dixon try he made the wrong decision and I think he was responsible for the Welham one too.
How is Ratchford carrying the ball loosely an issue only at fullback? Will this not happen at halfback?
He doesn't have a controlling role because he is not a halfback and thus is incapable of controlling. He's a good, elusive runner with decent hands, who cannot organise and has a poor kicking game.

You are now Cunningham....Would you play Walsh at FB and Charnock at SH?
That is essentially what TS is doing, because he is more senior and could play FB better than the junior but sacrificing the craft in the most important position to do so!

HBs do not carry the ball loosely. The play is tight and collision is high. You just don't because you can't.
Ratchford used two hands when at HB.
Ratchford has craft, few of our players are so gifted. You play the best players in a position where they can get their hands on the ball.
If Ratchford would push up into the halves in attack at every opportunity, I wouldn't care what team sheet official position he was given. The problem is he isn't pushing up.

I would play my best organiser and kicker, with an ability to steer a team around the pitch, at scrum half - Walsh.
I would play an elusive runner with a decent passing game but little capacity to organise or control at fullback - Lomax.
That is what Cunningham would be doing for not for injury.
That is also what Tony Smith is doing - playing your best organiser (whoever that may be, G'OB or Patton, it's certainly not Ratchford or Bridge) at scrum half, and his elusive runner with decent passing at fullback, Ratchford.

You answered the question about Sts perfectly then contradicted it when it comes to Warrington.
You have just said in effect Walsh is not an organiser and Charnock is!

I am just dumbfounded when we are crying out for leadership, quality and strength at half back and we continually play our best half back at full back.

We could play Penny at FB just like Keiron Dixon played FB to great effect against us.