Re: Puletua Has Been Offered New 2 Year Deal : Wed Apr 27, 2011 9:47 am  

Mugwump wrote:

There is no "surely" about it. Hohaia is 28/29 and has ten years of extremely hard miles on the clock. For all we know he could be the next Bradley Clyde or Brett Mullins - two players who would "surely" improve Leeds - and gobble up four years of money with little in return.

I very much doubt Puletua won't care about what's going on around him. Top players (in all sports) are known for the fickleness. Winners like to be in the company of fellow winners.

That's a gamble with any big player, that they won't function as well once they change their enviroment.

Talking about winners though, Hohaia has won the 4(tri) Nations and the World Cup, which isn't bad.

Re: Puletua Has Been Offered New 2 Year Deal : Wed Apr 27, 2011 11:30 am  

Mugwump wrote:

Let's not allow sentiment to cloud reason here. Until Eastmond showed his cards he was the player Saints were banking on to lead the club forward and I could count on one hand the number of fans in here who were voicing the criticisms they are now.

As for proving himself - he did so against the toughest opposition in the world (the Kangaroos and Kiwis) and was the standout player for Saints in the GF.

There is no "surely" about it. Hohaia is 28/29 and has ten years of extremely hard miles on the clock. For all we know he could be the next Bradley Clyde or Brett Mullins - two players who would "surely" improve Leeds - and gobble up four years of money with little in return.

Saints fan base will rise. But whether it will rise to the extent McManus hoped for three years ago I'm not sure. We are in the middle of a seemingly endless economic stagnation and people may not be able to attend the games they used to.

I very much doubt Puletua won't care about what's going on around him. Top players (in all sports) are known for the fickleness. Winners like to be in the company of fellow winners.

Mugwump are you feeling a little down.

We are currently playing without said Eastmond and doing very nicely thankyou. If we where not so injured it would be debatable whether we would currently be top.

Graham going will probably have little effect on TP's choice. In the end it's the money and the family pull of the NRL that will decide TP's mind. I'm sure he's beyond the well if he's not playing then I'm not playing.

We have no clue on the replacement for Graham. If TP is looking at the future of Saints, he can see it playing around him every week and sat on the injury table. This is the same squad which has got so far in the season without a full side yet to play.

Put Perry, Clough, LMS in that pack, it does not look too bad. Then add Roby and it looks awesome. With Soliola and Puletua it's incredibly strong, Graham is a loss, but still one of the best packs in the league, if not the best.

Re: Puletua Has Been Offered New 2 Year Deal : Wed Apr 27, 2011 11:44 am  

Mugwump wrote:

Saints fan base will rise. But whether it will rise to the extent McManus hoped for three years ago I'm not sure. We are in the middle of a seemingly endless economic stagnation and people may not be able to attend the games they used to.

Before we moved to Widnes, when Saints fans decided to opt for going to the pub in greater numbers than usual, we had been averaging around 11,000 to 11,500 in the previous two seasons, if memory serves, and our gate had been steadily rising in spite of playing in a hole of a ground. I have every confidence that the numbers will go up again next season and we may see even greater growth as the fans who stayed away from KR due to its condition and lack of seating feel able to join in the live action.

Re: Puletua Has Been Offered New 2 Year Deal : Wed Apr 27, 2011 11:56 am  

Now it's imperative that you keep Puletua. His loss coupled with Graham's would be huge. You just to have to look back to the Wigan game and see what the effect was when they were both off the field. But again like Graham it's a tricky one, because it's not just a simple case of them staying for a bucket load of cash. Graham wanted to try his hand in the NRL, nothing you could do about that. And Puletua want's to back to AUZ for family reasons, again completely out of Saints control.

Re: Puletua Has Been Offered New 2 Year Deal : Wed Apr 27, 2011 12:14 pm  

nikos wrote:

no, its hearsay, from somone he claims he knows who is a player for your club.

shall a post a link to Wiki to tell you what the definition of a fact is?

No, it's a fact because I spoke to TP last week.

Re: Puletua Has Been Offered New 2 Year Deal : Wed Apr 27, 2011 9:32 pm  

bewareshadows wrote:

Mugwump are you feeling a little down.

We are currently playing without said Eastmond and doing very nicely thankyou. If we where not so injured it would be debatable whether we would currently be top.

No. We've lucked out with Lomax and let's not forget it. If at the start of the season Simmons had said he was promoting Lomax ahead of Eastmond the fans would have been in uproar. And with good reason as there was every chance Kyle would have returned to the kind of form which played havoc with some of the best defences in the business not so long ago.

Graham going will probably have little effect on TP's choice. In the end it's the money and the family pull of the NRL that will decide TP's mind. I'm sure he's beyond the well if he's not playing then I'm not playing.

Don't be naive. Top players pay very close attention to the ins and outs at their club. One only need look to football to see evidence of this week-in, week-out (Rooney, Gerrard and Torres being three examples to pick from a pile). Top players want to win. Obstacles to winning make them feel uneasy. And losing the club's best (and irreplaceable player) is one big obstacle.

We have no clue on the replacement for Graham. If TP is looking at the future of Saints, he can see it playing around him every week and sat on the injury table. This is the same squad which has got so far in the season without a full side yet to play.

There is no replacement for Graham. None. Yes, we may acquire the services of someone who performs well in the NRL. But he won't be someone who is a) world class, b) capable of playing seventy minutes on a week-to-week basis, c) in the prime of his career and d) a leader. There's a good reason for this because the Ozzies know the value of top props better than anyone and they will move heaven and earth to retain their services.

Put Perry, Clough, LMS in that pack, it does not look too bad. Then add Roby and it looks awesome. With Soliola and Puletua it's incredibly strong, Graham is a loss, but still one of the best packs in the league, if not the best.

Perry has yet to prove himself. He was a top player. It remains to be seen whether he is still such or someone who has given his best years to the NRL (or a walking crock). Clough is a very solid performer - but he is not a lead prop. LMS is still adjusting to the team so I will give him some slack. However, it is true to say that when called upon to support TP and Graham he was found wanting. Wigan's pack - ineffective when the two lead props were on the field - went into overdrive precisely when LMS needed to shore up the middle.

Re: Puletua Has Been Offered New 2 Year Deal : Thu Apr 28, 2011 7:40 am  

Mugwump wrote:

Perry has yet to prove himself. He was a top player. It remains to be seen whether he is still such or someone who has given his best years to the NRL (or a walking crock). Clough is a very solid performer - but he is not a lead prop. LMS is still adjusting to the team so I will give him some slack. However, it is true to say that when called upon to support TP and Graham he was found wanting. Wigan's pack - ineffective when the two lead props were on the field - went into overdrive precisely when LMS needed to shore up the middle.

Whilst I mostly agree with this paragraph, if you'd replaced McGennis with Clough or (especially) Perry, I reckon there would've been much less of a problem.

Whilst I agree it will be difficult/nigh on impossible to replace Graham because of a) his playing ability and b)his drive and commitment to the cause, I do wonder what Paul clough could bring to the table next year. Last season, his yards stats were very impressive. He gives us a high work rate and an ability to gain yards in contact with a second drive. There's rumours he's a skilled passer of the ball from his days at 13. He'll never be a prop to bash people down to break through, but then, Graham doesn't tend to do that much either.
Assuming his injury clears up, he'll be another year older and stronger (and wider). It will be interesting to see how he develops as a player.

If we were all fit, I would assume Royce would take clough and LMS on the bench as props, starting Tony at 13 and always having 3 guys on the pitch to play hard up the middle. We'll see how cloughy gets on as the season progresses (assuming we get him back).

Re: Puletua Has Been Offered New 2 Year Deal : Thu Apr 28, 2011 8:26 am  

Mugwump wrote:

We've lucked out with Lomax

We haven't lucked out with Lomax any more than we lucked out with Eastmond.

Unless by lucked out you mean put a monumental amount of work into developing good young players, in which case I agree.

Re: Puletua Has Been Offered New 2 Year Deal : Thu Apr 28, 2011 11:39 am  

FearTheVee wrote:

We haven't lucked out with Lomax any more than we lucked out with Eastmond.

Unless by lucked out you mean put a monumental amount of work into developing good young players, in which case I agree.

We've put a lot of effort into player development. But what is the point of comparison? The rest of SL? That's hardly a yardstick of greatness and being the top of the pile (are we?) shouldn't necessarily induce a crescendo of applause. I mean, can we REALLY say our system is so good after we have produced one first rate prop in nearly twenty five years? What about full-back? Our last realistic FB was Prescott (who, whilst gifted in many ways, was hopelessly ineffectual in defence because of his diminutive size).

Popular or common opinion is not truth. Yes, we have produced some good players at Saints over the last ten years. But nowhere near enough for us to congratulate ourselves in the manner some do. I mean, if you think twenty five years between GB props is an indicator of greatness fine. But don't expect me to agree (if we are REALLY serious about judging our development programme let's measure it against the best i.e. those existing in the NRL).

Had we a record of seamless replacement (Eastmond to Lomax) in ALL positions we could break out the champagne. But we don't. Which means we lucked out with Lomax.

Re: Puletua Has Been Offered New 2 Year Deal : Thu Apr 28, 2011 12:13 pm  

Mugwump wrote:

We've put a lot of effort into player development. But what is the point of comparison? The rest of SL? That's hardly a yardstick of greatness and being the top of the pile (are we?) shouldn't necessarily induce a crescendo of applause. I mean, can we REALLY say our system is so good after we have produced one first rate prop in nearly twenty five years? What about full-back? Our last realistic FB was Prescott (who, whilst gifted in many ways, was hopelessly ineffectual in defence because of his diminutive size).

Wellens surely?

Popular or common opinion is not truth. Yes, we have produced some good players at Saints over the last ten years. But nowhere near enough for us to congratulate ourselves in the manner some do. I mean, if you think twenty five years between GB props is an indicator of greatness fine. But don't expect me to agree (if we are REALLY serious about judging our development programme let's measure it against the best i.e. those existing in the NRL).

Had we a record of seamless replacement (Eastmond to Lomax) in ALL positions we could break out the champagne. But we don't. Which means we lucked out with Lomax.

Saints youth develoment has improved immensely in the last 10 years, and the fruits of that labour is only just starting to seep into the first team with the likes of Eastmond, Wheeler, Lomax, Ashurst, Dixon, McGennis, Foster, Gaskell, Clough, Moore, Armstrong, Makinson etc. We've also produced SL quality players in the likes of Smith, Bannister and Ellis, some of whom were binned off for off the field activities rather than on the field ability.

No one with any sense thinks we are the best in the world at producing youth players, or has said so as far as I can see, but we are far better than we were (there's one point of comparison) and picking out one position to back up the argument when we've produced players in the last ten years who can play to a good standard in every other position on the pitch is just you being pig headed.