Gotcha wrote:
I could quite easily label the same statement at you. I am well aware half backs take time to settle, however they also show they have the ability in the first place to warrant that settling period, and that they could do it in future. I have said this many times, and still never seen a post to refute it, there is no difference between Sutcliffe and Lee Gaskell at the same ages, they are like for like players completely. Gaskell however, had many better games in the halfs, and was the choice of porn for certain sky commentators. Howver, what is his level now? what position is he? Saints knew what they were doing, and for the right reason. Are you suggesting Saints would regret their decision?
We have had two or three half backs over the last decade who looked miles better than Sutcliffe, they were sent packing. Do the club regret it? I can't recall seeing your posts of not to write them off.
You might be able to level it but not label it, even then you're quite wrong. Gaskell and Sutcliffe were similar only in their rangy stance. Sutcliffe is a much bigger unit and has the strength that goes with it.
I suspect Gaskill's failure had more to do with his attitude than anything else but Saints wouldn't be the first SL club to have shut the door on someone based on short term aspirations.
We've produced one decent half back in the last ten years and at a time when there was no where for hm to go. In any event, I thought the club were wrong then and I bet they have regretted it since, in fact, probably for the last six weeks.
Your opinions are based on personal prejudice, you only have to look at your continued criticism of Burrow for evidence of that. You've written his value to the team off on about five separate occasions to my knowledge and been (noticed the correct use of the word) proved wrong every time.
Oh, and before you go off on one, Burrow was and never will be a creative half back. However, he was and still is, one of the best impact players in the game. IF he is used properly!
