I don't disagree that Reynolds would have also improved us, but pretty much everyone has been able to see our 2 biggest issues is hooker and halfback. Reynolds plays one of those positions.

But this has been my point, our problems are far deeper than not having a 'proper hooker' and our success last year was nothing to do with having a 'proper hooker', proper hooker, proper half, its all old thinking. Hell we lined up with Moon and Burrow in the halves last week.

Look at Catalans in 2009 who nearly stopped the three-peat with a halfback at hooker and ostensibly a second rower giving one of the all time great SL performances in the halves.

St Helens 2006 treble winning side had a hooker who could fill in at prop, a hooker who started his career as a half and a stand off who started his career as a winger. Their 2nd rower in that game started at standoff for them in the 2010 grand final/

Look at the Aussie world cup winning squad, you had Luke lewis who has played 9, 6, 7, 13, centre and wing, The final side had 2 stand-offs/fullbacks playing centre, and a full back on the wing, the stand-off was bombed out of Canterbury because he was 'too small' for the postion, the half back started
his career playing at loose, a second rower who was an SoO stand off, their loose forward was by any measure a prop

But all of those examples you give, those guys could fulfill the basic requirement of the position they were being asked to play, as well as in some cases offering my something different. Burrow cannot fulfill one of the basic requirements for a hooker which is to defend in the middle and do a forwards share of the tackling. It might be old fashioned but there's a reason most teams stick to the blueprint, because it works.

Oh dear. That hole is getting very big now.

Menzies played a fair old chunk of first grade at Manly at 6 too though, especially his last season before coming to the bulls

But it isnt a 'basic requirement' of being a hooker. There is no basic requirement of a hooker. The team that wins isnt the team that has the hooker who performs 30 tackles a game and gets to dummy half. There is nothing written in the rules of the game that says a hooker needs to make 30 tackles a game.

The best teams dont do what 'most teams' do. Thats why they are the best and most teams are most teams.

Menzies was at the Bulls in 2009. I was meaning Greg Bird. Who may have been wearing 13 that day (Centre Adam Mogg was named in the halves) but anyone who watched that game will have seen everything go through Bird

But it is though. Every single team follows this structure, sure they might differ slightly, for example Clark and Roby have more of a remit to run, Houghton is defense first and a lot pickier when to scoot. Every year in Nrl and Sl employ a hooker who can distribute and tackle.

Thats not to say that others don't do a decent job as fill ins, but to be able to be successful their for long periods they have to fulfill what is needed. Taking your example of Bird yes he's a back rower who has played a lot of halfback, including test and SoO. Can he defend out wide? Yes, can he organise and lead? Yes. Can he pass? Yes. So he can play six.

As for the best teams not sticking to the system I suggest you look back at the teams to have won SL or the Nrl over the last few years, with the exception of Leeds for the run in last year, I bet they all had a hooker who could at least defend in the middle of the pitch.

Thats not to say that some of these positional expectations haven't changed, especially recently. Props having to do more minutes and be able to pass is a good recent example. But the role of hooker hasn't really changed.

If you want an example look at Peter Wallace at Penrith, moved to 9 this year, but is still expected to defend in the middle and make 30 tackles. If he couldn't have done that I'd doubt he'd have stuck there. He doesn't get hidden out wide.

Like anything if we ignore the evidence against your hypothesis you will be proved right.

Positions evolve and change, there was a time when nearly all teams went with a ball playing loose forward. Yet Sinfield has been something of a novelty. Now most teams play an extra prop at 13. Does that mean we have lost a creative player? Well no because previously a Full back being an extra pivot was unheard of. A full back used to be a defensive position. Yet Zak Hardaker can barely pass a ball and was MoS when Leeds won the treble.

You're right, there's also nothing written to say a prop has to defend in the middle or that the FB has to drop back 30/40m behind the defensive line, so let's play Mitch Garbutt on the wing and Sutcliffe at left 2nd row when we are defending in the next game. 'Most teams' wouldn't do that and we don't want to be 'most teams' now.

Whilst we're at it why don't we play Galloway at right centre in attack and Watkins at prop in attack, after all Galloway is just a rugby league player who happens to play prop and Watkins is just a rugby league player who happens to play centre.

But Nathan Cleary does. Where as Leeds previously may have needed to hide Burrow, Sinfield was often our top tackler. We could have stuck a 9 on Sinfields back and had that 30 tackle a game hooker. But we would still have played exactly the same way.

With most players there are things you gain and things you lose. You dont dump peak Lauitiiti because he is a lazy defender. You surround him with great defenders like Ellis, like JJB, like Senior, and you cover for his deficiencies through other positions and other players. That is balance.

If you have a great defensive half, you dont need a great defensive hooker. If you have a great creative Fullback, you can go with a workhorse at loose. If you have great creative second rowers, you can go with a defensive minded centre, You can cover the work of bigger forwards if you have big hardworking backs