Re: Soliola : Mon Mar 28, 2011 5:24 pm  

He's not been able to string a run of games together, so it's difficult to judge. Hopefully by the end of the season he'll have played 25+ games and we can judge him better. We've seen some glimpses that he could be a class act, but I have concerns about his injuries.

Re: Soliola : Mon Mar 28, 2011 7:16 pm  

Am still unclear why we bought him to fill the problem centre position, only to never play him there. Were we under the impression he was a centre? Gilmour still looks like twice the player of either Flannery or Soliola, can't help thinking we missed a trick by letting him go.

Re: Soliola : Mon Mar 28, 2011 7:30 pm  

SomersetSaint wrote:

Am still unclear why we bought him to fill the problem centre position, only to never play him there. Were we under the impression he was a centre?

He used to play centre in Australia but then switched to the second row. He'd been in the second row for a couple of years prior to coming here.

Gilmour still looks like twice the player of either Flannery or Soliola, can't help thinking we missed a trick by letting him go.

I agree. That was a mistake IMO. Mind you, Gilly hasn't changed in his ability to give away at least one penalty per match, I notice!

Re: Soliola : Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:08 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

Mind you, Gilly hasn't changed in his ability to give away at least one penalty per match, I notice!

Seems to have less of a glass jaw these days and can make a break.

Flannery is the thinking man's Mike Bennett.

Soliola still looks like an expensive mistake but hopefully will come good.
The point about using him and service to him is well made.

Re: Soliola : Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:18 pm  

Most people could see that letting Gilmour go was a mistake, especially considering the lack of pace in the squad at the time. Excellent player who deserved better, a far better player than Flannery.

That being said, Soliola needs to be given a run of games before he is judged properly. He has shown signs of being a great addition, he can certainly make plenty of yards.

Re: Soliola : Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:27 pm  

It's still a little early to tell IMO.

He does tend to get drawn out of the line. I noticed that in the GF last year, but like people have said he has not really strung a good run of games together.

I wonder if he is more of an impact forward, someone who you put on when the game has settled down after the first 20 mins.

All in all he's played 7 games in the last 18 months. I don't think that's more than 2 games in a row before an injury has interupted. Granted he is a more experienced player, but I think you need a decent run of games to get into the flow of any side.

Flannery has been played way out of position since he signed. He has been very effective in the 2nd row, but out of his depth at loose.

If Flannery had not played at loose for all that time, I think people's opinions of him would have been much better. As it is the damage may have already been done with the board only offering a 1 year deal.

Re: Soliola : Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:36 pm  

Talau (who also played second row and centre, but is more of the latter than Soliola) was exactly the same when he first came over and it took him at least twelve months before he started to really show his worth.

It takes time. Game time. And Sia just hasn't had enough to find his feet yet.

Re: Soliola : Tue Mar 29, 2011 8:20 am  

Any overseas player we bring in should be absolutely top drawer, Flannery and Soliola aren't.

Re: Soliola : Tue Mar 29, 2011 8:22 am  

SomersetSaint wrote:

Any overseas player we bring in should be absolutely top drawer, Flannery and Soliola aren't.

obviously,but Flannery is a bit like the Curates Egg IMO

Re: Soliola : Tue Mar 29, 2011 8:42 am  

SomersetSaint wrote:

Any overseas player we bring in should be absolutely top drawer, Flannery and Soliola aren't.

C'mon. Soliola's probably had, what, 1/2 a dozen games for us, punctated by injury and an offseason (and the rest of the team weren't exactly convincing for the first few games).