Pearson actually said he wanted 2 new halfbacks to make a total of four. Holdsworth was nothing like an alternative to Chase, because the fact of the matter is there isn't another like him available to SL.

IIRC, the Prince/Miller saga was also after Holdsworth signed, so if anything that's where we switched our attempts to (and we eventually got one).

Holdsworth has been a massive success hasnt he.Mind you,best watch what i put or else will get 2 mods acting the big men.

we've always had a half back, in Richard Whiting, but he's never been played there. He was a stand off when we got him from Featherstone then very rarely played him in the position we got him as. Now we play him in the second row, he's not, he's a loose forward/standoff, always has been , always will be. I would say his ball handling skills and football brain are the best at the club.

Where?

Stupid and Alzehimers

Holdsworth has been massively disappointing IMO. That still doesn't make him a poor Chase substitute or the reason we didn't get Chase, it was never one or the other.

I can't be d to go through it again.

Well I don't know why you missed them, but I've seen Whiting play for us at stand-off (albeit a while back), and I'd actually say they were the least impressive performances I've seen him give for us. His decision-making wasn't quick/good enough and he dwelt in possession. Whiting is many things, a great player being chief among those accolades/attributes, but he's not the halfback answer for us.

The home derby this year put that myth to bed.

You could well be right. We could have also had the deal with Miller agreed when we went for Chase, missed out on Chase so went for Holdsworth, miller pulled out so we went for Prince.

All pointless now.

In fairness, if he had a few games to bed in and was playing alongside a decent scrum half, things might be different. He has had some good games at 6 (was it Leeds last year when he got MOM at stand off?), and given a run there could do quite well. He's definitely better as a loose forward though.

I would have hoped so, but even if you accept the point that he wasn't used to playing there, as I've just pointed out he did once have a few games there (think it was around 2006/07). Then there's the fact that when Gentle asked all the players where they saw as their best position, Whiting apparently said back row.

He was named at 6, but he played as a back row. Seymour played as the sole halfback that game and was outstanding.

I agree all have opinions and whether we agree or disagree,there is a right way and a wrong way to reply !

I know that's what was said, but he wasn't playing as a typical back-rower. Had his hands on the ball a lot in central positions. Perhaps more like the old ball handling 13, which is where he could be best utilised if we could come up with a game plan to accommodate it.

Don't entirely agree with you, TBH. He was predominantly on our left edge to overload Leeds' right, and didn't really play that much of a ball-handling role. Did a bit more than your typical back rower, but no more than he often does and didn't dictate any play. Seymour took charge of all of that in far and away his best 80 minutes for us.

Either way, he wasn't and isn't a stand-off.

I saw it differently, but don't care enough to argue about it.



Even Thorman had the odd good game.



I think he could do a more than passable job there, but 13 is definitely his best position.

Why didn't FC go for Sammut. Pulling up trees at Bradford.

Dont start that one!

There's a reason he's at Bradford.

There's a reason Holdsworth was at Salford!!

He's a bottom 4 halfback and should be at a bottom 4 club

No he's not and no he shouldn't.

Ah like Matty Smith?

Eye the club that filled Langleys medal cabinet with more than Ellis Yemo and Westy

which was years ago, when they had a decent team