No1 Saint wrote:
Your an angry man.
That's what wading through plebs does to you unfortunately.
No1 Saint wrote:
Longy was replaced by Eastmond who like you say was an amazing prospect - shame we didnt sort out his contract before getting rid of every other decent halfback at the club. Some amazing strategy at work there.
...and of course you'dve preferred it at the time if we'd let him go to Warrington and kept Smith instead? This board wouldn't have melted with bile from the agenda'ed "ambition" brigade then and would have been full of "great move Saints" posts instead wouldn't it? ****ing unbelievable...
No1 Saint wrote:
Scully was a beast but I suspect we thought we'd replaced him with Wilkin - sadly thats a massive downgrade. Nearest thing to Scully is probably Westerman
is a downgrade on Scully. TP and Wilkin have been about as good at filling the role (some of their terrible injuries aside, particularly Wilkin's) as we could have found under the circumstances.
No1 Saint wrote:
Graham - well we replaced him with a second row - not exactly a great plan. The fact he's played for Aus in the back row hardly qualify's him to replace one of the worlds best props
Gidley - I suspect most people would agree we did ok here , Shenton didnt hit the heights but on the face f it was a sound signing.
Talau - for me this was the start of the rot - Gilmour was a second row who could provide cover in other positions, using him as a replacement and claiming there was nothing else out there is just plain cost cutting stupidity.
We've done the "who realistically could/should we have signed to replace Talau at the time worth the money" thing many, many, many, many times before. Noone has ever yet come up with a name we could and should have signed at the time that would have been as good as just moving Gilmour out there.
Noone. Feel free to make your own suggestions though and we'll go 'round the whole sorry roundabout again shall we?
Nobody's saying our signings have all been fantastic or the right moves. All that is at question is our supposed "ambition" and desire to compete. In the last 3 years we've signed 2 Aussie international forwards, a world-cup winning fullback, GB's first-choice centre, resigned Robes, TP and Sia despite big offers from elsewhere, offered as much money as a rich RU club to keep Eastmond etc. etc. etc. There is no lack of "ambition" there whether numpties like it or not. You can question the wiseness and common sense of some of the decisions (Hohaia was a brainfart from the very start) - you can't question the "ambition".
