Re: Jamie Foster : Wed Apr 20, 2011 9:27 pm  

The speedster days of Offiah and Preston are long gone. Cover defences are now so effective (in terms of player fitness, speed, stamina and organisation) that you need freakish speed to round the last tackler in the line. Had Offiah played today he'd finish with little more than half his end-of-season try total.

Speed is a useful asset. But it's no longer the prime requisite. When Warrington chose to run with Kevin Penny in the first team they were thinking a decade behind the game. Now if you've got a winger who scores 12-15 tries a season whilst conceding little and another who scores twenty five but costs seven tries per year because of weak tackling and a sh!tload of territory because his hands awful you take the former every time. And if he also chips in with an 80% completion rate with the boot you bite his hand off.

Re: Jamie Foster : Wed Apr 20, 2011 10:01 pm  

I really don't get what people are harping on about. Foster is going great, hardly makes big blunders, is a safe pair of hands. Scores lots of tries on a wing with a mix of centre's young and old. He's not had the service of a Lyon or Gidley. Foster did not start the season and has 6 tries only3 behind the leading scorer without an experienced centre, that's pretty good going.

He also kicks goals for fun.


Lets face it when some people are saying he is not the best, they are saying he is not the fastest. That's fair enough but you rarely see players have foot races anymore so it's hard to tell.

There are alot of big name wingers out there, but I would not be interested in swapping Gardner for them, never mind Foster.

Re: Jamie Foster : Wed Apr 20, 2011 10:21 pm  

In fact, I'd be really p*ssed off if we did let him go.

Re: Jamie Foster : Thu Apr 21, 2011 6:10 am  

If Gardner is of contract at the end of 2011 then foster is the ideal replacement. In fact I'd have foster ahead of Gardner now when everyones fit.

I think it was tough call leaving him out at start of the year as he was one of our best players in the back end of last season.

He's really impressed me to be honest.

Re: Jamie Foster : Thu Apr 21, 2011 6:15 am  

St pete wrote:

If Gardner is of contract at the end of 2011 then foster is the ideal replacement. In fact I'd have foster ahead of Gardner now when everyones fit.

Gardner is playing extremely well this season. I've no complaints about either of our wingers.

I think it was tough call leaving him out at start of the year as he was one of our best players in the back end of last season.

Well, maybe he wasn't impressing at the start of the season? Perhaps last season got to him a bit. I notice that whenever Royce is asked about Foster in the press he says 'he is getting better', complimenting his finishing but that is all. So perhaps Royce is making sure Foster's feet stay firmly on the ground, in those great boots of his. Or maybe he suffered for not having Gidley inside of him? After all, Foster himself has said that Gidley used to stay behind after training to help him improve his game.

Re: Jamie Foster : Thu Apr 21, 2011 7:28 am  

SaintsFan wrote:

Gardner is playing extremely well this season. I've no complaints about either of our wingers.

Well, maybe he wasn't impressing at the start of the season? Perhaps last season got to him a bit. I notice that whenever Royce is asked about Foster in the press he says 'he is getting better', complimenting his finishing but that is all. So perhaps Royce is making sure Foster's feet stay firmly on the ground, in those great boots of his. Or maybe he suffered for not having Gidley inside of him? After all, Foster himself has said that Gidley used to stay behind after training to help him improve his game.

Even tho Gardner has played well this year I don't think he should get a new deal as he's been crap for the last 2 yr.

Gardner will be on good wedge so by replacing him with Gardner who IMO is better than Gardner we'd have extra cash to spend on new players or other players who's new contracts are up.

Re: Jamie Foster : Thu Apr 21, 2011 7:43 am  

St pete wrote:

Even tho Gardner has played well this year I don't think he should get a new deal as he's been crap for the last 2 yr.

Gardner will be on good wedge so by replacing him with Gardner who IMO is better than Gardner we'd have extra cash to spend on new players or other players who's new contracts are up.

i'm assuming you mean replace gardner with Foster?

Re: Jamie Foster : Thu Apr 21, 2011 7:43 am  

Can't see why people have such a problem with Gardner. he is a solid if not spectacular player who cant be on a huge wedge. Let's face it when saints
Wanted to offload last year the only sniff was from salford

Re: Jamie Foster : Thu Apr 21, 2011 8:05 am  

Foster is still just a kid (seen his new boots for Easter) and still developing, his heart is in what he does, but with his kicking game of course union will look at him and I would be flattered if they came in via my agent talking big money and what playing for England in union can do for you!

This week the Times did a two page spread on how it is 20 Years that Sky has been in sport and were proud to claim what they have done for Premiership Football, Cricket and Rugby Union! no mention of our great game, just at a time when the BBC seem likely to scrap the Super League show, what message does this send out to young players and the Big Future for Super League??

Re: Jamie Foster : Thu Apr 21, 2011 8:23 am  

Saint Simon wrote:

i'm assuming you mean replace gardner with Foster?

Correct.

Hes younger, faster, better under the high ball, full of energy, awesome goal kicker and full of energy.

He'd also but on lot less than ade.

By giving ade a new deal would run the risk of losing good young talant in fodter