Chris Hankinson didn't line up for London today after being in their squad.

A recall on the cards maybe given Wigan's current back line injury status?

I think we need to TD as we need Bibby to play on the wing. The only other choices are to play either Bateman or Halsall.

He was injured

Par for the course.

being discussed this week according to AL in his press conference

Would he want to though? It seems playing in the backs at Wigan is a guarantee to injury.

Seriously I do not see why not given the news on Field - Hankinson might not have ever set the world alight when he has played for Wigan but is is solid and relaible (I do not recall him having a bad game at all), and he is experienced. Surely he would be a good option as he can play centre or wing. I suppose if Gildart is not too long away from return then that might ease things a bit but if he breaks down again....but if he is back and French is back in the team then we have a better back line, if lacking in cover.

Madness if we dont recall him. I get that we have younger players coming through but if we have the option to recall a fairly experienced first team 'regular' during an injury crisis then we must take it

The only reason I can see for not calling him back is that it would then count on the cap and maybe harm the chances of getting the prop we clearly need (if it would count I do not know) further down the line. I don’t have a clue if that’s the case but give me the choice of scrapping through without Hankinson for a few weeks to then enable us to get a prop would be a no brainer.

If there is no impact on future signing plan then it’s a simple call and he should be back here, even if it’s just for 2 or 3 weeks.

He’ll be seeing his loan out. It’s not as easy as just calling him back when he’s set up down in London and renting a property etc.If he was on loan around the corner it could be a different story.

These things about loans I've never understood.

First is sending a player out on loan who can't be recalled. Whether that's due to the contract or as suggested distance and not logistically possible. Although I don't get that as its only 2hrs from Euston to North Western or three and a half in a car.
Second is allowing a loaned player to play against us. Never understand the logic surrounding that one.

So we'll face Trinity without backs of French, Manfredi, Gildart and Marshall. At least Hastings returns but nothing yet on Tommy's possible disciplinary matters. It's difficult enough winning against them with a more or less a full team. Makes the Hankinson situation really odd.

No disciplinary against Tommy

I think the salary cap thing carries more weight. Although I get that perhaps he wouldn't be able to train with us if he's based in London. There's clearly some reason Lam won't make public that they can't/won't recall him beyond not seeing the need.

Hankinson was sent out on loan so he can get some consistent game time. It would be a bit daft for us to then recall him because of a few injuries when it's possible he might only play one game. Especially when we've got players already in the squad that also need game time at some point otherwise they are going to go through another season with barely any rugby.

If it looks like Gildart and Manfredi are going to be out longer than expected then recalling Hankinson is sensible. If they return in a week or two as expected then Hankinson once again isn't going to play. It's only fair on the player to keep him at London unless it's absolutely necessary to recall him. The return of French provides a few more options too.

If our backline had caused us issues against Leigh I could understand the urgency to bring in reinforcements but actually they did alright. A bad read from Isa for one try but you occasionally get that from him no matter where he plays. Other than that they did pretty well and it was the forwards who didn't perform and were particularly dodgy defensively.

I suppose its how one sees Hankinson in the wider squad structure.
The player is the best goal kicker at the club and he has won us games with his goal kicking and we've lost games without him there.

As for the selection and where he plays. Right centre was his usual gig but he did play 2nd row at Salford one time. There has been great publicity from the club over Zac glad to be back at fb which begs the question who's to be right centre. When French is match fit where's he to play if Zac is at FB? Not right centre surely?

The bottom line for me is that Hanks must play given his goalkicking ability. Zac is, according to the club, this season's full back. French's position is now unknown. We are immediately missing French, Marshall, Manfredi, Gildart and Field. That could be one of the best five backs in SL and none are available v Wakefield.

With all these problems it does pose the question, Does Lam know his best 17? After that does he also know his best available given injuries and suspensions are inevitable?

I genuinely can't remember any game, apart from the grand final, where we've lost a game due to Zac's goal kicking. Even then I'd say that we have a better chance of winning the game with Zac and Gildart in the centres rather than Hankinson and Gildart.

In the 18, 19 and 20 seasons we would have won a grand total of three more games if we had kicked 100% of our conversions, which no one does. That's miniscule compared to the impact of picking a player who will help us score fewer tries or concede more tries. Just pick the best team based on playing ability then select the best goalkicker from that team. Right now Hankinson would get in on playing ability, the goalkicking would just be a bonus.

What worries me about this Hankinson's recall is how serious Gildart's injury is. First of all Gilly was missing for a couple of weeks and now there is no date on his return!

To me, Hankinson should come in v Wakefield at right centre with Bateman left centre. Bibby and Hanley wingmen.

As for the GF and Hanks. I firmly believe that had Hanks been on the right with Zac then we'd have won. We'd have scored more tries and kicked more goals with that as a right side.
Around four weeks before the GF we played Saints and beat them. The only thing that kept Saints in that game was Zac's poor goal kicking. It was obvious to me that if we went into a GF with Zac kicking we'd struggle. If we'd Hanks out there in the GF goal kicking alongside Zac then we'd have won with more than one score.

I don't think Hankinson is a better option than Bibby on the wing. By your logic we may as well try to sign that David Beckham wannabe winger who played at Saints. He was a good kicker. Shit winger though.

Pound to a penny this groin strain turns into a hernia op

Zak would love that

He is earning his money giving lockdown haircuts these days. His fancy Dan persona is probably more suited to hairdressing then rugby

I've certainly had enough of Lam's baseless optimism when it comes to predicting the length of injury rehab.

That is my worry and it would add a further 6-8 weeks to his recovery. I can see no other reason for recalling Hank.

Recall our 5th choice centre. Panic set in early i see.z