Re: Soliola : Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:08 pm  

Mugwump wrote:

The issue isn't whether we are producing world class props. It's that over the past 20 years we have struggled to produce props who've been able to fashion a lengthy career at the club and be above average.

In that respect - yes, we are doing pretty bad.

It's abit chicken and egg though, for most of SL we bought in props (actually most of the team) one or 2 like Cunningham and Wellens managed to break into the team, but most of our players where from elsewhere. Overseas and Other clubs in the UK.

But then about 8 - 10 years ago, more and more broke through. Now we have the situation where we are growing our own (so to speak) at about 50% of the squad. fans want instant success, clubs want long term success, but can't do without the short term success.

Yes we could have done all this 20-30 years ago, but would we have won as much, would the fans have the patience or would it be sack the coach and the players and the board after 4 or 5 matches???

Was it eric huges before SL, he was doing alot with the youth team, but we needed instant result no one's 4-5 years down the track so we sold our home grown and bought in. The legacy of that work remained and with the likes of wellens, cunningham, briers showing there worth, youth development came back into fashion at saints.

It's a tough call how long do you give a player to make it? Late developers are rare nowa days, if you have not made it big in 3 games, your a has been. It's sad but true the boards give what the fans want as the fans pay the wages.

Re: Soliola : Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:43 pm  

bewareshadows wrote:

It's abit chicken and egg though, for most of SL we bought in props (actually most of the team) one or 2 like Cunningham and Wellens managed to break into the team, but most of our players where from elsewhere. Overseas and Other clubs in the UK.

But then about 8 - 10 years ago, more and more broke through. Now we have the situation where we are growing our own (so to speak) at about 50% of the squad. fans want instant success, clubs want long term success, but can't do without the short term success.

Yes we could have done all this 20-30 years ago, but would we have won as much, would the fans have the patience or would it be sack the coach and the players and the board after 4 or 5 matches???

Was it eric huges before SL, he was doing alot with the youth team, but we needed instant result no one's 4-5 years down the track so we sold our home grown and bought in. The legacy of that work remained and with the likes of wellens, cunningham, briers showing there worth, youth development came back into fashion at saints.

It's a tough call how long do you give a player to make it? Late developers are rare nowa days, if you have not made it big in 3 games, your a has been. It's sad but true the boards give what the fans want as the fans pay the wages.

None of this alters the bare facts though. Yes, we have had success in several areas (mostly backs and the back row) - but not prop. Which is a problem because props are arguably the MOST important players in a squad. You can't win anything with weak props but you can get away with having weaker players at wing, fullback, the back row and possibly centre.

Re: Soliola : Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:45 pm  

bewareshadows wrote:

Mc Dermott maybe????

I'd have taken O'Connor over McDermott any day.

Am I right in thinking that Emmitt gave up for year when he was around 18?

Re: Soliola : Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:53 pm  

Offside Monkey wrote:

Which british props from the last 10-15 years do we class as really good?
Graham?
Morley?
Peacock?
Young Fielden?
O'Connor?
Anderson?
Fozzard?
McDermott?
Broadbent?
Sampson?
Harmon?

All of them were good players. Some better than others (Harmon being the weakest). A couple world class.

The weaker ones you couldn't make the keystone of a pack. But add them to one containing say Graham, Puletua and Perry and you've got one hell of a pack.

Re: Soliola : Tue Mar 29, 2011 6:00 pm  

Harmon was a St. Helens lad wasn't he? I worked with his dad (Tommy) at Rockware.

Re: Soliola : Tue Mar 29, 2011 6:24 pm  

Billinge_Lump wrote:

Emmitt came from Warrington didn't he? We can hardly claim credit for him.

He came through our academy though, so I suppose we can.

Re: Soliola : Tue Mar 29, 2011 8:19 pm  

Mugwump wrote:

None of this alters the bare facts though. Yes, we have had success in several areas (mostly backs and the back row) - but not prop. Which is a problem because props are arguably the MOST important players in a squad. You can't win anything with weak props but you can get away with having weaker players at wing, fullback, the back row and possibly centre.

True, but as with everything it depends who you compare your team too. Not that many teams can make props that they can keep hold of.

Re: Soliola : Tue Mar 29, 2011 11:57 pm  

bewareshadows wrote:

True, but as with everything it depends who you compare your team too. Not that many teams can make props that they can keep hold of.

It's not too much to ask that we produce at least one good (he doesn't have to be great) prop every four years who we can rely on - barring issues - for years.

Re: Soliola : Wed Mar 30, 2011 7:41 am  

Mugwump wrote:

None of this alters the bare facts though. Yes, we have had success in several areas (mostly backs and the back row) - but not prop. Which is a problem because props are arguably the MOST important players in a squad. You can't win anything with weak props but you can get away with having weaker players at wing, fullback, the back row and possibly centre.

I'd disagree, the most important players in the squad are the spine, 1,6,7,9,13. That is why we have done so well over the years with a fairly settled set of good players in those positions.

They need 4 reasoanble props to set the platform, but not necessarily world beaters. Look at the Wigan front row last year, Fielden, Coley, Prescott, O'Caroll, none of whom are any better than journey men, but they steam rollered the title. I would prefer 4 solid grafters at prop, and splash the cash elsewhere in the squad, and is one reason why I won't be devastated if Graham leaves. His wages could be better spent elsewhere.

Re: Soliola : Wed Mar 30, 2011 8:31 am  

Mugwump wrote:

None of this alters the bare facts though. Yes, we have had success in several areas (mostly backs and the back row) - but not prop. Which is a problem because props are arguably the MOST important players in a squad. You can't win anything with weak props but you can get away with having weaker players at wing, fullback, the back row and possibly centre.

Its not like pre 2007, though, you can't just use a big sets of props and a running hooker to steamroller the opposition, so in a salary capped game, you have to be careful not to put all your eggs in one basket.
I'd suggest our props are one of our strongest assests and, ignoring TP's age, if Graham went but Clough continues to transform like he is, we may not miss him as much as we think.

Where esle would we strengthen if we had his wages spare? I'd suggest we'd just see who was available and then decide what benifit to our squad they'd be.