Re: Kit numbers? : Sat Nov 19, 2011 10:09 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

Poor old Wilkin. When Simmons played him at loose during the early part of 2011 season he was happy as larry. But he keeps getting stuck at second row.

I thought Laffranchi was being brought over to play at prop? That's what Simmons said a while ago anyway.

The idea is for laffranchi to cover the role TP took on last year. It's the extra prop at 13 that Royce likes.

Apprantley Royce opted for laffranchi over waterhouse as he thinks laffranchi is more suited to that role.

Re: Kit numbers? : Sat Nov 19, 2011 10:13 pm  

St pete wrote:

The idea is for laffranchi to cover the role TP took on last year. It's the extra prop at 13 that Royce likes.

Apprantley Royce opted for laffranchi over waterhouse as he thinks laffranchi is more suited to that role.

and he's right

Re: Kit numbers? : Sun Nov 20, 2011 8:22 am  

SaintsFan wrote:

Poor old Wilkin. When Simmons played him at loose during the early part of 2011 season he was happy as larry. But he keeps getting stuck at second row.

I thought Laffranchi was being brought over to play at prop? That's what Simmons said a while ago anyway.

I have never understood why we have a natural 13 in wilkin and yet successive coaches have played anyone but him at loose forward while he is used as a workhorse second rower. We are losing one of the most creative positions in the team by playing the likes of clough tp Hargreaves flannery et al there. It appears as though wilkin will go through his career played out of position and never fulfilling his potential. Shame really.

Re: Kit numbers? : Sun Nov 20, 2011 8:35 am  

SomersetSaint wrote:

I have never understood why we have a natural 13 in wilkin and yet successive coaches have played anyone but him at loose forward while he is used as a workhorse second rower. We are losing one of the most creative positions in the team by playing the likes of clough tp Hargreaves flannery et al there. It appears as though wilkin will go through his career played out of position and never fulfilling his potential. Shame really.

I agree.

Re: Kit numbers? : Sun Nov 20, 2011 10:10 am  

SomersetSaint wrote:

I have never understood why we have a natural 13 in wilkin and yet successive coaches have played anyone but him at loose forward while he is used as a workhorse second rower. We are losing one of the most creative positions in the team by playing the likes of clough tp Hargreaves flannery et al there. It appears as though wilkin will go through his career played out of position and never fulfilling his potential. Shame really.

The extra prop at 13 is a NRL thing and with Royce fresh from the nrl I think that's the reason.

Re: Kit numbers? : Sun Nov 20, 2011 2:46 pm  

St pete wrote:

The extra prop at 13 is a NRL thing and with Royce fresh from the nrl I think that's the reason.

However previous coaches haven't played him there either. We haven't had a real loose forward since scully, and wilkin has never been given a chance to play there, under Anderson potter millward and now Royce. I reckon he would have established himself as the best 13 in the country, let's face it, he's streets ahead of either curly or sinfield in terms of pace, creativity, workload and kicking game. He's the best loose forward we've never had

Re: Kit numbers? : Sun Nov 20, 2011 3:48 pm  

SomersetSaint wrote:

However previous coaches haven't played him there either. We haven't had a real loose forward since scully, and wilkin has never been given a chance to play there, under Anderson potter millward and now Royce. I reckon he would have established himself as the best 13 in the country, let's face it, he's streets ahead of either curly or sinfield in terms of pace, creativity, workload and kicking game. He's the best loose forward we've never had

Id Guess the fact millward, Anderson, potter and now Royce won't play wilkin at 13 tells it's own story.

Re: Kit numbers? : Sun Nov 20, 2011 4:13 pm  

St pete wrote:

Id Guess the fact millward, Anderson, potter and now Royce won't play wilkin at 13 tells it's own story.

Do you honestly think that Hargreaves, Flannery, Clough and co are better 13s than Wilkin?

Re: Kit numbers? : Sun Nov 20, 2011 4:53 pm  

SomersetSaint wrote:

Do you honestly think that Hargreaves, Flannery, Clough and co are better 13s than Wilkin?

It's not what I think but it's obvious the other coaches do.

Maybe they feel wilkin offers more outside on the edges?

Re: Kit numbers? : Sun Nov 20, 2011 6:17 pm  

St pete wrote:

It's not what I think but it's obvious the other coaches do.

Maybe they feel wilkin offers more outside on the edges?

There is obviously some thinking behind it, I just don't see it myself