I saw Riddell play in the NRL some years ago at St. George. If memory serves, he did much more from dummy half - taking the ball up a couple of steps trying to wrong-foot the markers before offloading (as Newton used to do at Wigan). He also had a decent short kicking game.

I've been pretty disappointed with him so far. He hasn't done that much wrong bar a few dodgy passes but he hasn't really caught the eye either. Perhaps our one-out/totally predictable attacking lines don't help him much - but often he seems content to throw a short ball out. He certainly doesn't create any headaches for the markers.

On the other hand, I have to admit we often look much more lively when either MclLorum and Tommy are playing hooker. But that could be partly down to the fact that we often push the pace of the play-the-ball once Riddell has been substituted.

Dave,
He is an improvement on what we've had for the last three years. He is better than Clarke. Boderus has been a waste of a spot, (how many games has he played)

Riddell has done o.k.
You didn't defend him last week when Wigan scored ALL their tries when he was on the pitch, but are very quick to attack him for ONE bad pass on Friday.



I suggest you come into the South Stand bar after the game v Hull and see if he is really fat. I'll guarantee you'll find he isn't.
[urlhttp://www.superleague.co.uk/statistics_player.php?hs1=2009&hp1=2075&hs2=2009&hp2=526&stat=tries&season=2009[/url

He's not been as good as I expected but he hasn't been as bad as some people have made him out to be.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing but Tommy L is a far better hooker which makes me wish we had signed a scrum half instead. I was actually calling for us to get rid of TL till I discovered how good a hooker he is. I still maintain we will not win a trophy with TL as scrum half.

And Riddell v Cunningham


[urlhttp://www.superleague.co.uk/statistics_player.php?hs1=2009&hp1=2075&hs2=2009&hp2=359&stat=tries&season=2009[/url

Look at Cunninghams missed tackles, errors and penalties.


He's nowhere near as bad as Dave is suggesting.

Riddell could find the cure for cancer and David would still complain as he replaced his beloved Michael Higham.

Smith was injured at first (ankle, I think), then he was magnificent.

Rogue,
For some reason I couldn't reply to your post inviting Dave to go to the South Stand to see that Riddell isn't so fat.
I keep imagining you carrying one of those mirrors from the fair ground that distorts the body shape and Riddell innocently walking in front of it.
Then Feka pushing him out of the way.

I just wasn't very good ...

When we were arriving at the ground on Friday Riddell was walking from the players car park.

I was walking alongside Barnsley Pie who posts on here. He commented on Riddells size saying that some of the posters on here would be surprised that Riddell was not as fat as they thought.

I agree, Rogue. He wouldn't last 50 mins if he was that fat. It's just the invitation to the South Stand conjured up a surreal picture for me.

Looking at the stats in comparison to Cunningham the only thing Riddell needs to do to improve to be on a par if not better then Cunninghams level of preformence is to take the line on a little more. He's been doing that more recently and he always causes problems.

If the lad has a really commited pre season next year I think we'll see a better player in 2010.

He committed to a pre season in 2009 in case you forgot. Was supposedly coming over early to get up to speed and settle in. As to being on a par with KFC with some improvement, you have seen them both play and one is clearly far better than the other.

Dave

It wasn't one bad pass. It was one bad pass and a ridiculous kick

But it isn't just one game or a couple of mistakes I am making my judgement on. It is now virtually a complete season and IMO he has had significantly more poor games than he has had good and I do not subscribe to the notion there has been a steady improvement. He still remains as likely to have a bad game as he does a good one IMO.



He looks unfit whether he is fat or not.

I do no think we will see much different from him next season and I don't think that is good enough for a player in his position, one of the key positions on the pitch.

Dave

He had a pre season in 2009 but picked up a knee injury half way through and missed one of the friendlies due to that.

I'll be the first to admit i'd like to see some improvment from him on a couple of fronts at the start of 2010 but i also feel he's got that improvment in him.

He's not been spectacular but has been solid enough and can get better.

One makes more metres, but makes less tackles, misses more tackles, makes more errors and gives away more penalties, and WAS once a great hooker.

They are different types of hooker. Cunningham is a runner from dummy half, Riddell is a distributing hooker.

Is it any coincidence that Wigan backs have scored more tries than any other back division this season?

Rubbish.

I've rarely seen Mark Riddell actually play poor this season.

His technique, tackle completion, distribution and organizational play is consistantly very good. He just sometimes hasn't raise his game in certain fixtures, and that IMO is mainly down to not taking the line as much as he should.

The assumption that, based on statistics, Riddell is as good or better than Cunningham, is just laughable.

Riddell has never once looked like having the same influence on a game that Cunningham regularly has, and let's not forget that Cunningham is a crock who is coming to the end of his career, not someone who is supposed to be at the top of his form.

The fact that people are talking about a converted SH being a better hooker than our expensively imported specialist should be enough to tell us what level he is currently at.

And this continual banging on about how good he is compared to Higham is as big a misnomer as comparing him to McCormack or Nicky Kiss.

It's not rubbish at all. He has played poorly in games this season and there have been threads on here discussing it.

You are making him into something he isn't by basically saying his only fault is he doesn't take the line on enough.

Dave

How has he played badly? Which aspects of his game has he failed in?

The main criticisms of Riddell's game on this message board has been his fitness and as I have mentioned, his lack of taking on the defence. In general, Mark Riddell is a good player and it's rare that he plays badly.

I think you're judging him off posts you've seen off an internet forum opposed to actually looking at his general all round game.

Wasn't he injured??

If Smith got the BOTD why not Ridell?

I think he was, wasn't he struggling with a knee?

i think riddell will get better but he doesnt seem fit enough which means his game time is limited,when he stayed on in the semi he was found out big time by warrington.i agree when mm playes piggy does better and prob our best performance of the year at murrayfield piggy didnt play

Disagree with that massively to be honest, he's play 50+ minutes a match since MM was out, and although he looks tired, which he always does, he's always one of the first back on a chase.

I doon't think he got found out big time by warrington, just we got done in that area of the pitch because the props around him were useless. We actually did a helluva lot better when he was on the field.

We scored [iall our tries[/i when he was on the pitch.

Do you want to explain to me what the hell your favourite player was doing last night?

His famous distribution was absolutely woeful.

This guy is not improving, and needs to go. You can just see he isn't interested.