Saint #1 wrote:
He made 8 according to the match report! Our defence generally was awful yes, but our left edge defence has looked much stronger the last two games IMO.
Hang on a second - there's a big difference between looking strong against Catalans & Hull and looking strong against Leeds.
Turner isn't a bad tackler, I have no issue with his defence at loose forward, it's his decision making and footwork that I have the issue with, and this is only exposed out wide.
I'm not going to argue that Turner's a great tackler. But there's a hell of a lot of mitigation which it seems no one wants to talk about. This suggests to me that people have already made their minds up and see only what they want to (also known as - confirmation bias).
Personally I think the club were totally out of order dropping Turner - especially since his supposed dodgy defense won us the game against Warrington and he made two - possibly three last ditch tackles which prevented Leeds going out of sight in the first half of the CCSF.
Whatever flaws Turner possesses in his game - they existed in no lesser or greater degree at the start of this season. I'd go so far and say the same right back to the mid-point of the season before when he really started to make progress.
Which begs the question - if they are unnaceptable now, why weren't they twelve or eighteen months ago?
The kid is always one of our most potent attacking players. He has an excellent temperament. He doesn't give away needless penalties and when push came to shove last season he managed to play very well under enormous pressure in roles he's completely unfamiliar with.
IMO, he was one of the LEAST likely players to drop.
That said, I'm oddly glad that Saints have dropped him because it might encourage folk to realise that Turner's job has been made that much harder because Saints stack up defensively not only tight - but offset (which is weird because you'd expect it to be the other way around given that Percival is an outstanding defender). How many times this season have Turner & Swift been left two-on-four making successful split-second defensive decisions a zero-sum game?
You could put Gary Connelly in some of the scrapes those two have encountered and it still wouldn't make any difference. Once you commit you are either right - or expensively wrong. There's no middle ground.
It's a shame really because with the ball, behind Watkins he's the most dangerous centre in the league IMO. That KC feels his defensive frailties outweigh his ball-running shows the extent of the problem. I'd be curious how it would go with Turner attacking at centre and defending at loose, and Jones attacking at loose and defending at centre.
What I can't understand for the life of me is why Cunningham hasn't switched Turner & Percival. We know Percy can play on the opposite side. We know he's one of the best defensive centres in Britain. This really would give us a better read on where Turner's flaws are. I just can't fathom why Kieron hasn't tried it for three or four games.
I think the pressure is more on Burns than Walsh to be honest. Burns misses as many tackles as Walsh, has less try assists despite playing 10 more matches and has given away more penalties than anyone else in the league. I can see what Walsh contributes and intends to do - he's the general, the organiser who will kick well, pick a good pass and manage the game. I've watched most of our matches this year and I still have no idea what Burns' purpose/role in the team is. His kicking game is pretty ordinary, his passing is just okay, but he isn't a runner either. He's a competitor and we as fans like that and how committed he is to the cause, but I'm not sure what his input to the team as a halfback is.
I know I've been away for a couple of weeks but Walsh sure must have been on fire if you now think he's more valuable than Burns. Reading some of the match reports it seems favourable reviews of Walsh are thin on the ground so I can't explain your reasoning.
Since when did being a good competitor become little more than a mediocre asset whilst someone showing almost no appetite for competition whatsoever is deemed to be more valuable?For me being a good-competitor in a fully professional rugby league club is a bit of a deal-breaker. The truth is you simply can't afford to have anyone who isn't such near your side.
The fact that Walsh is "trying" to do this and that means very little unless he starts succeeding. As I've said previously, no one doubts that a fully fit Walsh is a valuable asset. But the guy suffered a horrendous injury. The kind of injury which can end a career. I'm not saying Walsh is finished - but right now he's nowhere near ready. Personally I'd bench him until next season. Give him more time to build his confidence. Wilkin's been a better scrum half than him all season -
and he already has a working partnership with Burns.Returning to Burns - I think Saints screwed up when they looked at Travis at Hull KR. I think they committed too early without ever checking to see whether he'd recovered from the injuries which blighted his second season. I think they were expecting the Travis Burns of his SL debut season (who, whilst not express, could shift enough to punch big holes in the opponent's defence) and were probably dismayed when, upon arrival, they realised his legs are shot.
I do think you are wrong about his kicking game, tho. At Hull KR his kicks were a major weapon (especially his aptitude for 40-20s, which are priceless in SL). I don't think he's lost that part of his game - but I do think he is a victim of our success in the forwards as well as indecision over who should really be shouldering the kicking duties.
Bear in mind, at Hull KR he was often behind an inferior pack - which meant he was receiving the ball to kick often deep into his own half. All that extra pitch worked in his favour - and he used the space well. The problems for Travis at Saints are a) he's almost never the primary kicker (which means he's getting hardly any match practice - which is bad for any kicker) and b) generally speaking our pack is pushing him far further forward than he was at Hull KR on tackle five. Deep kicks are difficult to execute when you're almost into grubber-kick range and as for 40-20s - forget it because he's almost always outside his 40 by tackle four or five.
Look, I'm not saying I'm entirely happy with Burns overall contribution.
But even on a bad day he's doing one crucial thing which Luke Walsh, right now, is not - he's putting up a fight.
You can't carry a player on a rugby league pitch. I know we think we are helping Walsh out - but I'm not so sure. Certainly it can't be long before fierce competitors such as Roby, Walmsley, Tommy etc. (who'll literally open up a vein with a rusty razor for the club) get tired of leaving the field exhausted and battered whilst the supposed "brains" of the side is watching try-scorers stroll past him whilst playing at being a professional. It's just human nature.
