Re: Andy Yates : Fri Jun 28, 2013 11:39 am  

Offside Monkey wrote:

I don't think he made a first team appearence though, so he obviously wasn't as good as what was around him (at the time).

I think he made an appearance when Daniel Anderson was here.

If he has turned out alright, then it goes to show the merits of the dual reg system

He wasn't on dual registration. He was let go by Saints and took a part-time role at Hunslet, working part-time also. Leeds picked him from Hunslet but have said he is on dual registration next season. That might be along the same lines as Alex Walmsley's dual registration arrangement we have with Batley (I think he's only played a couple of times for Batley this season hasn't he?).

The problem is, you can't keep them all.

No but instead of say him we've enjoyed the benefits of Perry, for example. Sometimes I think Saints are a little too distracted by NRL players to see the potential they have under their own noses, and that sometimes that potential needs time. We have needed forwards, after all.

Re: Andy Yates : Fri Jun 28, 2013 11:41 am  

SaintsFan wrote:

I think he made an appearance when Daniel Anderson was here.

He wasn't on dual registration. He was let go by Saints and took a part-time role at Hunslet, working part-time also. Leeds picked him from Hunslet but have said he is on dual registration next season. That might be along the same lines as Alex Walmsley's dual registration arrangement we have with Batley (I think he's only played a couple of times for Batley this season hasn't he?).

No but instead of say him we've enjoyed the benefits of Perry, for example. Sometimes I think Saints are a little too distracted by NRL players to see the potential they have under their own noses, and that sometimes that potential needs time. We have needed forwards, after all.

The posters point wasnt that he was on dual reg more that playing for the lower league sides and gaining experience works quite well for some players, had the system been about when this kid was in our system it may have benefitted him

Re: Andy Yates : Fri Jun 28, 2013 12:02 pm  

southernsaint7 wrote:

The posters point wasnt that he was on dual reg more that playing for the lower league sides and gaining experience works quite well for some players, had the system been about when this kid was in our system it may have benefitted him

That was exactly my point. The succesful signing of Hill and Walmsley and subsequent rise in interest in lower division players around the 21-23 year old mark show that for many, its as good a place to develop as a SL reserve team.
This season, Jordan Hand, who is in a comparitive position to the one Yates was, is playing regular rugby in the same enviroment. Hopefully we'll do better with him.

SaintsFan wrote:

snip

Its always a little easier with hindsight. perry has been a disaster, but as a signing it seemed sound.
I think the real error could be which ones we seem to want to keep - for instance, Magennis was only released due to injury. We persisted with him even thought I personally thought he looked incapable of making the grade. Meanwhile, Johnson and Yates have gone on to be a success.
Other players like Ashurst, Emmit and Dixon got plenty of chances before being deemed not up to standard - whilst we perhaps made up our mind on Johson and Yates too early, we dragged them on too long.
Clearly the u19s can only take a player so far and it seem that only guys of greater levels of talent can just jump into first team action (and its especially hard for forwards, especially late developers). So you've got two options in between - dual reg, or loan them to a Sl club that needs them.
Past that, you could try and send them down under to play in the NSW or Queensland cup, like Mullally did.

Re: Andy Yates : Fri Jun 28, 2013 12:08 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

potential they have under their own noses, and that sometimes that potential needs time. We have needed forwards, after all.

Problem is, when you're in a salry capped league, the idea of paying a wage to Yates for 6 years (if he made his appearence under Anderson) to sit in the reserves doesn't make sense. You may as well release him, pay no one for 6 years, then revisit the championship and sign whoever's turned out best - in this case Walmsley.

The perfect situation is to somehow keep "first dips" on him without paying him. We could have send him on season long loans for York or Hunslet to pay 75% of his wages?

Whilst people might not like the dual reg system when they see the likes of Paul Wood playing at Swindon, it seems to have its advantages in terms of national player production.

Re: Andy Yates : Fri Jun 28, 2013 1:13 pm  

southernsaint7 wrote:

The posters point wasnt that he was on dual reg more that playing for the lower league sides and gaining experience works quite well for some players, had the system been about when this kid was in our system it may have benefitted him

He only played for Hunslet because he couldn't get into the first team at Saints. He's been travelling over from St Helens while holding down a part-time job. The only way playing for Hunslet has 'helped' him it would seem is that because in some Superleague teams it is becoming fashionable now to look to the Championships for players, he has been noticed by the current Champions who are dual reg partners with Hunslet. He is now 23. I am quite sure he would have preferred playing for Saints during the intervening years.

Re: Andy Yates : Fri Jun 28, 2013 1:18 pm  

Offside Monkey wrote:

Its always a little easier with hindsight. perry has been a disaster, but as a signing it seemed sound. I think the real error could be which ones we seem to want to keep - for instance, Magennis was only released due to injury.

You've agreed with me in essence because my criticism was of our recruitment policy rather than individuals. Saints appear to be lagging behind a bit in that their default is to look to the NRL rather than the British game, Walmsley being the exception. Forwards always mature later and therefore it would make better sense to hold on to them for longer to see how they go. I don't think it would have been unreasonable for Saints to have loaned Yates (and Johnson too) out to Championship clubs on season long loans to see how they develop rather than let them go completely, but aside from dumping players at Salford we never seem to do that. There appears to be little in the way of strategic planning at Saints where recruitment and development (beyond junior rugby) is concerned.

Re: Andy Yates : Fri Jun 28, 2013 1:28 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

He only played for Hunslet because he couldn't get into the first team at Saints. He's been travelling over from St Helens while holding down a part-time job. The only way playing for Hunslet has 'helped' him it would seem is that because in some Superleague teams it is becoming fashionable now to look to the Championships for players, he has been noticed by the current Champions who are dual reg partners with Hunslet. He is now 23. I am quite sure he would have preferred playing for Saints during the intervening years.

I'm sure he would - full time training meaning he doesn't have to find another job, playing aginst skinny teenagers instead of full grown, battlehardened men.
I can see why players, especially prop forwards, would benefit more from spending time playing against Championship opposition rather than SL u19 .
Suggesting Leeds have only looked at him because it "in fashion" is a little odd, they've had no problem producing players or finding quality signings when needed over the last 10 years. They picked up Ian Kirke in a similar manner to Yates and he's been a salwart for them for what, 8 years? Zak Hardacker was also signed from Fev.

Re: Andy Yates : Fri Jun 28, 2013 1:31 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

You've agreed with me in essence because my criticism was of our recruitment policy rather than individuals. Saints appear to be lagging behind a bit in that their default is to look to the NRL rather than the British game, Walmsley being the exception. Forwards always mature later and therefore it would make better sense to hold on to them for longer to see how they go. I don't think it would have been unreasonable for Saints to have loaned Yates (and Johnson too) out to Championship clubs on season long loans to see how they develop rather than let them go completely, but aside from dumping players at Salford we never seem to do that. There appears to be little in the way of strategic planning at Saints where recruitment and development (beyond junior rugby) is concerned.

Hang on, we've signed Turner and Manu too. Our 3 NRL signings have all been duff, which make them stick in our craw a little.
Certainly, it would have been better to give Johnson and Yates time at a loan club, but salary caps won't let us keep them all. We backed the wrong horses in Ashurst, Magennis and Dixon though, who were deemed not good enough in the end, that was part of the problem (I still think Dixon was unlucky).

Re: Andy Yates : Fri Jun 28, 2013 1:36 pm  

4 matches. All listed as unoffical

4 matches. All listed as unoffical

Re: Andy Yates : Fri Jun 28, 2013 1:40 pm  

If we had kept him on the books, Saddened would have called time on his career long before 23.

He's not played a game for the Rhino's yet some people are calling this an endorsement. In the end we can't keep everyone and sign everyone. You have to make choices. Surely we are not suggesting that Graham, TP in their prime should have been dropped for this guy. People love using hindsight to make judgements, but quite frankly that's a weak call.

If you want to kick up a fuss then it should have been done at the time the decision was made to let him go. Not years hence when you can sit back and just wait for an oppertunity to put the knife in.

I mean seriously until this signing was announced how closely was Andy Yates career being followed by all those who are happy to now bag the club for letting him go?