Re Goulding on the wing. He's only 21, got lots of time on his side to develop as a player, at Wigan he's been a centre, a centre has to break the line and find his wingman, in defense he has to be strong and do more tackling as the centre is more in field than the winger.

Lets look at this in-conjunction with Goulding. In the reserves he's scoring a lot of tries, he knows his way to the try line, at SL level in the centre he is running at bigger players with more experience than in the reserves, thus why he is having less impact, but put Goulding up against a SL winger and he will stand a better chance of beating him.

This season Goulding looks like he's lost a lot of weight, which means he has less size when facing his opposite centre, he's fast, fast enough to play on the wing, maybe even faster with recent weight loss.

Goulding has often been critised for not finding his wingman, as the winger he can do what he does best which is go for the line.

Playing on the wing would allow him time to adapt to the SL standard and not in a more central position as the centre. I've no doubt he'll score many a try on the wing.

Overtime he can then bulk up and learn from his experience playing as one of the outside backs.

It's really just a thought.

Oh no they can't.
I will have you know that I have almost-reasonable eyesight and am jolly good at analysing rugby matches.

Which for a West Highalnd White is quite an achievement!

Which makes the rest of us know-nothing-parrotts then does it?

In the opinion of the majority that have commented on your original point; we can see things you can't whereas you seem to stand alone in your view.

How about you enlighten us "know-nothing parrots" as to your wisdom of Hock starting?

Now then parrots, don't get ratty...it's just a discussion and you're wrong, it's not the Spanish Inquisition.

So basically you can't substantiate your position? Put up or shut up.

IIRC he actually stands with Nobby - and he didn't call anyone a "know-nothing-parrot" but, hey, let's not let the actual facts stand in the way of another turgid session of toing and froing.

If I'm wrong, would you please instruct me which bits of my nalysis of the situation are flawed and require further reconsideration and at the same time elaborate on your theory that your opinion must be correct because it is the same as the coaches.

Why exactly should Hock start? What is it that he does that makes him a must in the starting line up but means he is not good as an impact player off the bench?

Is it the fact that he has makes so many errors? Is it because he has somehow managed to make less tackles but somehow still miss more than all our other forwards*?

Please enlighten us.

* Prescott excluded, having only played 1 game.

Actually it was Bridger who used the term; I was quoting, not Jackdog, but quoting nonetheless HTH (aka You didn't remember correctly ).

He stands with Noble now - I prefer Nobles use of Hock at the end of last season. So by that logic we both stand with Noble.