Re: Clough, lomax, foster and armstrong sign new deals : Fri Oct 08, 2010 9:37 pm  

Roy Haggerty wrote:

Yes. Clough is cut from the same cloth as Stankevitch/Jonkers/Dwyer. Hard-working, good defence, not very big and not very fast, not likely to make many tackle busts or offload at all.

He's good at what he does, but every club with a decent academy has its own supply of Cloughs, and he wouldn't command much interest outside the bottom end of the table or the championship.

I think you've somehow got Clough and Bryn Hargreaves mixed up, mate. Cloughie is a MUCH better player than you're estimating. Last season he was 12th in SL's total yardage figures. This season he's a bit down on those numbers and yet they are still better than Jamie Jones Buchanan's (a player in the same mould) and he's only three or four hundred yards down on Joel Tomkins (having played fewer games).

The kid is one hell of a grinder with excellent fitness, good hands and a reliable head. IMO, there's plenty more improvement to come and he's a certain starter for the next five years.

Re: Clough, lomax, foster and armstrong sign new deals : Fri Oct 08, 2010 9:44 pm  

Spurry wrote:

He's not undervalued within the club, but there are many supporters on this forum who do not see him as a first choice player , i just think if given the chance he will become one of your best

So lets put this into perspective, you think that the supporters on this forum should give him a chance as he will be one of our best, yet you would not select him above any of the six second rowers at Wigan?

Re: Clough, lomax, foster and armstrong sign new deals : Fri Oct 08, 2010 10:13 pm  

RE: Lomax.

Ok, this is how it works. Kids are precisely that. They have the bodies of adolescents and yet fans expect them to perform against fully grown adults who have the physique of a silverback gorilla. It's little wonder the likes of Wheeler, Lomax and to a lesser extent Eastmond are always injured.

I'll keep on saying this until I slump over the keyboard dead: Unless a kid has obvious deficiencies in his game (terrible hands, no pace, serious attitude issues etc.) which are practically impossible to redeem you cannot make a fair judgement about his abilities until he reaches his final growth stage (somewhere between 20 and 23). The term "filling out" wasn't plucked from the luminiferous aether and thrown into everyday conversation just for a laugh. In six months a player can jump from 5' 10" to 6"+ and put on the best part of twenty pounds. That makes a hell of a difference to someone's game. Where was Joel Tomkins' game aged 19/20?

I mean, if you couldn't promote kids from the reserves in the dismal, slipshod, semi-pro days of the seventies and eighties without them looking like a straw among tree trunks what makes you think this is possible now (especially given the quantum leap in diet, training, attitude etc.)?

Re: Clough, lomax, foster and armstrong sign new deals : Sat Oct 09, 2010 8:19 am  

SaintsFan wrote:

So far as Foster is concerned, I'd kind of like to see him have a go at fullback sometime. He has great positional sense already, is not afraid to clear up messes, he is nippy, he can get round players and he is good defensively. He can also boot a ball up the pitch so he would do great dropouts. Granted, he may be a little skinny at present but nontheless it would be interesting to see how he performs in the position.

Playing foster at fullback could be a very good call. His positional play is very very good, he's very good on the high kicks and not afraid of putting his body on the line.

My only worry is his attack, i donn't think his attack is up to it at the moment but im sure that will improve in time as he bulks up.

Might be worth a try in the pre season games.

Re: Clough, lomax, foster and armstrong sign new deals : Sat Oct 09, 2010 10:18 am  

St pete wrote:

My only worry is his attack, i donn't think his attack is up to it at the moment but im sure that will improve in time as he bulks up.

In part that will be up to the coaching he receives I should imagine. He has managed to sidestep around players: he did that very well against Warrington, for instance. But given the improvements he has made in such a short space of time since the Salford match, with the right coaching then I can see his attack coming on with few problems.

I'm not sure what 'bulking up' might do in terms of his attack? I can't see the correlation, is what I'm saying. I hope he doesn't artificially bulk up too much because that will simply slow him down and he's quite nippy at present.

Re: Clough, lomax, foster and armstrong sign new deals : Sat Oct 09, 2010 10:44 am  

Mugwump wrote: I think you've somehow got Clough and Bryn Hargreaves mixed up, mate. Cloughie is a MUCH better player than you're estimating. Last season he was 12th in SL's total yardage figures. This season he's a bit down on those numbers and yet they are still better than Jamie Jones Buchanan's (a player in the same mould) and he's only three or four hundred yards down on Joel Tomkins (having played fewer games). The kid is one hell of a grinder with excellent fitness, good hands and a reliable head. IMO, there's plenty more improvement to come and he's a certain starter for the next five years. Just to put further meat on the bone so to speak Here are the stas for a 21 year old paul clough versues 24 year old John Stankevitch. Which basically backs up that Cloughie is a league above what Stinky and Jonkers were capable of. http://www.superleague.co.uk/statistics ... eason=2010

Mugwump wrote: I think you've somehow got Clough and Bryn Hargreaves mixed up, mate. Cloughie is a MUCH better player than you're estimating. Last season he was 12th in SL's total yardage figures. This season he's a bit down on those numbers and yet they are still better than Jamie Jones Buchanan's (a player in the same mould) and he's only three or four hundred yards down on Joel Tomkins (having played fewer games). The kid is one hell of a grinder with excellent fitness, good hands and a reliable head. IMO, there's plenty more improvement to come and he's a certain starter for the next five years. Just to put further meat on the bone so to speak Here are the stas for a 21 year old paul clough versues 24 year old John Stankevitch. Which basically backs up that Cloughie is a league above what Stinky and Jonkers were capable of. http://www.superleague.co.uk/statistics ... eason=2010

Re: Clough, lomax, foster and armstrong sign new deals : Sat Oct 09, 2010 11:03 am  

Mugwump wrote:

RE: Lomax.

Ok, this is how it works. Kids are precisely that. They have the bodies of adolescents and yet fans expect them to perform against fully grown adults who have the physique of a silverback gorilla. It's little wonder the likes of Wheeler, Lomax and to a lesser extent Eastmond are always injured.

I'll keep on saying this until I slump over the keyboard dead: Unless a kid has obvious deficiencies in his game (terrible hands, no pace, serious attitude issues etc.) which are practically impossible to redeem you cannot make a fair judgement about his abilities until he reaches his final growth stage (somewhere between 20 and 23). The term "filling out" wasn't plucked from the luminiferous aether and thrown into everyday conversation just for a laugh. In six months a player can jump from 5' 10" to 6"+ and put on the best part of twenty pounds. That makes a hell of a difference to someone's game. Where was Joel Tomkins' game aged 19/20?

I mean, if you couldn't promote kids from the reserves in the dismal, slipshod, semi-pro days of the seventies and eighties without them looking like a straw among tree trunks what makes you think this is possible now (especially given the quantum leap in diet, training, attitude etc.)?

I always like to use Andrew Johns and Ellery Hanley as the perfect examples to show that players arent world beaters at 18-19 and you need to give them time.
Andrew Johns only started breaking into the Newcastle 1st team when he was 20 years old due to another players injury. He was 21 when he 1st played state of Origin. However this was only because Ricky Stuart had sided with superleague down under and therefore wasnt available.

Ellery Hanley had been playing for Bradford for a number of years steadily improving, scoring 34 trys in 89 appearances. However in 1984 aged 23 his game suddenly went up a level and he scored 55 trys in just 37 games. This lead to him making his representative debut for first England and then full GB team.
The rest is history.

Re: Clough, lomax, foster and armstrong sign new deals : Sat Oct 09, 2010 12:43 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

In part that will be up to the coaching he receives I should imagine. He has managed to sidestep around players: he did that very well against Warrington, for instance. But given the improvements he has made in such a short space of time since the Salford match, with the right coaching then I can see his attack coming on with few problems.

I'm not sure what 'bulking up' might do in terms of his attack? I can't see the correlation, is what I'm saying. I hope he doesn't artificially bulk up too much because that will simply slow him down and he's quite nippy at present.

I prob used the wrong word when i said "bulk". I mean when he gets stronger and develops in size, i think he's a little weak at the moment. A good pre season could see him make that extra step up.

Re: Clough, lomax, foster and armstrong sign new deals : Sat Oct 09, 2010 2:12 pm  

The Chair Maker wrote: Just to put further meat on the bone so to speak Here are the stas for a 21 year old paul clough versues 24 year old John Stankevitch. Which basically backs up that Cloughie is a league above what Stinky and Jonkers were capable of. http://www.superleague.co.uk/statistics ... eason=2010 It's a fair analysis. Clough does appear to be achieving more than Stankevitch did.

The Chair Maker wrote: Just to put further meat on the bone so to speak Here are the stas for a 21 year old paul clough versues 24 year old John Stankevitch. Which basically backs up that Cloughie is a league above what Stinky and Jonkers were capable of. http://www.superleague.co.uk/statistics ... eason=2010 It's a fair analysis. Clough does appear to be achieving more than Stankevitch did.

Re: Clough, lomax, foster and armstrong sign new deals : Sat Oct 09, 2010 2:36 pm  

St pete wrote:

I prob used the wrong word when i said "bulk". I mean when he gets stronger and develops in size, i think he's a little weak at the moment. A good pre season could see him make that extra step up.

Fair comment. I always think of months spent in the gym turning nicely toned guys into hefty blokes who can't run for toffee when people mention the word 'bulk'.