Mugwump wrote:
And yet it is worthless if the player in question cannot perform the multitude of other tasks a centre is given.
I think if you go back and watch the old videos from Paul's career you may change your mind on that point. I started watching Saints in 1983 and I still say he is one of the top 3 centres I have seen play for Saints. I would have Jamie Lyon top followed by Lockers and Newlove joint second.
Mugwump wrote:
But he was quicker than Loughlin.
I think that is questionable given that Newlove only played for Saints during the summer era on firm pitches. Loughlin played in winter on swamps. Pre Saints Newlove didn't look any faster than Lockers IMO.
Mugwump wrote:
Certainly no better than Newlove.
Mugwump wrote:
But not as many as Newlove.
I disagree. Lockers had to work harder to get his winger away. Newlove played in a star studded side which did a lot of the work creating overlaps for Him. Watch the 1988 John Player final against Leeds to see him winning the game for us virtually single handed. He also played a lot better at international level than Newlove which would seem to indicate that with a better quality team around him he would have performed a lot better for Saints than he did.
Mugwump wrote:
If by "showy" you mean he was the most potent attacking centre Britain has produced in the last thirty years - sure. He was also a damned good winger's centre - as Anthony Sullivan's record attests.
I think you'll find that honour belongs to Gary Connelly. Also as a huge fan of Sully's I would say he scored a lot of tries without any help at all from Newlove
Mugwump wrote:
So we've gone from Loughlin being "every bit" as good as Newlove to someone who did his job with the "minimum of fuss". And you've successfully managed to identify one attribute Loughlin had over Newlove - kicking.
He did his job with a minimum of fuss because he came through the Colts. Newlove came out of the back of a security van as the most expensive player in Rugby League. That's what I mean by showy.