Re: Andrew Dixon : Sun Jun 10, 2012 6:51 pm  

To be quite honest Im a little disappointed we are letting go of Dixon as he seemed to be showing signs of improvement at the start of this year....

Re: Andrew Dixon : Sun Jun 10, 2012 9:27 pm  

As previously stated, if Dixon goes and Gaskell decides to join a club that values his abilities we might as well pop a couple of coins on the academy's eyes and send it on its merry way down the river Styx.

McManus can hype it into the stratosphere with grandiose claims of "Golden Generations" but if we keep getting shut there really is little point.

Re: Andrew Dixon : Sun Jun 10, 2012 10:13 pm  

But surely it's not the rushing several through at once that matters it's the constant turning out and trying out of players.

Graham, Roby, Clough, Eastmond, Makinson, Lomax, Jones,

If we had not lost Graham and Eastmond to bigger paydays, then we would have a very impressive line up of players there.

Don't get me wrong I'd rather we kept our best players, but Saints could not compete with the NRL and RU, so we can't hold Saints responsible for the loss of Graham and Eastmond (although I felt the Eastmond senario could have been handled better earlier on).

I don't beleive we can fill Saints with Saints only players at the moment we have 4 Saints players starting regularly for the team, next year it maybe 5 or 6. It's going to go up and down but in the end the cap means we can't hold all our best, and we can't expect to hold onto players if there are better in their positions.

Manu/Sia/TP/Wilkin/Flanaghan - I think we are just a bit overloaded to keep another backrower. It's not Dixon's fault, but which one of these would we choose not to play next year?

Re: Andrew Dixon : Sun Jun 10, 2012 10:18 pm  

bewareshadows wrote:

I don't beleive we can fill Saints with Saints only players at the moment

Well, we had a mighty fine go of doing so last year and we made it to the CC semi and to another GF and were actually in a winning position (which made a change), with third spot in the league. Most of the season in 2011 was spent with a mostly Saints team and of course we beat the (now) Broncos with only one non-English player playing.

So I really do think it's not the inconceivable notion that some fans seem to think it is. But even so, allowing good young players to go when they have played such a significant part in our achievements of the previous year is, frankly, very poor.

Re: Andrew Dixon : Sun Jun 10, 2012 10:46 pm  

A bit of a shame, but he's at the age where he needs to play regularly and move beyond being a fill in player and he's never really moved beyond what he was 2 years ago (whether that is down to him or how the club have used him may be up for debate of course). Either the club don't think he's worth his wages, or that we have a crop of forwards able to play in the back row that have more potential and need blooding.

Re: Andrew Dixon : Sun Jun 10, 2012 11:02 pm  

bewareshadows wrote:

But surely it's not the rushing several through at once that matters it's the constant turning out and trying out of players.

Rushing players through is all well and good if you're getting a pretty even spread across the positions - not six stand-offs at once whilst Graham and Clough (a converted back row) are the only two props since Paul Forber.

Manu/Sia/TP/Wilkin/Flanaghan - I think we are just a bit overloaded to keep another backrower. It's not Dixon's fault, but which one of these would we choose not to play next year?

What does Flanagan offer that Dixon can't duplicate (tackling perhaps, but Dixon is a far better attacking forward). Wilkin has done bugger all for a long time and is no doubt on a hefty wedge. To me the Dixon situation has been handled appallingly. A good coach would have had him starting by now.

Re: Andrew Dixon : Mon Jun 11, 2012 6:40 am  

Mugwump wrote:

What does Flanagan offer that Dixon can't duplicate (tackling perhaps, but Dixon is a far better attacking forward). Wilkin has done bugger all for a long time and is no doubt on a hefty wedge. To me the Dixon situation has been handled appallingly. A good coach would have had him starting by now.

Flanaghan is a bigger defensive presence, but Dixon has showed some excellent attacking ability wide of the ruck.

Whilst he's still showing an excellent workrate in defence, I'd say its Wilkin that's lacking input given the reletive wages that I imagine they're all on. Flannery, whilst also willing, is fairly flacid at times.

Following Friday's selection and assuming you take 4 backrowers in a squad of 17, I'd say I'd be happiest with TP, Flanaghan Sia and Dixon being picked.
Flanaghan has the workrate and defensive prowess to lock in the attacking ability of the others and, as we saw a glimpse of on Friday, isn't without the ability to do some ball playing. I think he's your best chance to get an effective old school ball playing 13. Sia and TP give you size going forward and indefence and then Dicko would give some excellent variation off the bench.

Re: Andrew Dixon : Mon Jun 11, 2012 8:38 am  

I may get bagged for this, but I would rather have kept Dixon for another few years and give Clough a new deal than resign Wilkin to a long term deal.

I think McManus dropped another massive recruitment b*ll*ck with that one.

Re: Andrew Dixon : Mon Jun 11, 2012 8:46 am  

Mugwump wrote:

Rushing players through is all well and good if you're getting a pretty even spread across the positions - not six stand-offs at once whilst Graham and Clough (a converted back row) are the only two props since Paul Forber.

What does Flanagan offer that Dixon can't duplicate (tackling perhaps, but Dixon is a far better attacking forward). Wilkin has done bugger all for a long time and is no doubt on a hefty wedge. To me the Dixon situation has been handled appallingly. A good coach would have had him starting by now.

I do think you have some valid points here. We do seam to produce a lot of halves. But there are a few more forwards further down the pipe line.

I can well see the arguement with Flanaghan, when we signed him I was a bit surprised that we needed another backrower, with Flannery, TP, Wilkin, Sia, Dixon, Magennis etc. But then there were stranger signings at the time last year.

I also get the Wilkin thing, but we have backrowers a plenty and so I can see the arguement for shifting one out.

Still 6 in the team at the weekend is no bad effort, (FB) P. Wellens (W) T. Makinson (U) J. Jones (SH) J. Lomax (H) J. Roby (U) P. Clough

Re: Andrew Dixon : Mon Jun 11, 2012 8:56 am  

Carlos Alberto wrote:

I may get bagged for this, but I would rather have kept Dixon for another few years and give Clough a new deal than resign Wilkin to a long term deal.

Agreed. Whilst Wilkin has an amount of talent others don't, we have rarely seemed to convert that in to victory grabbing application on the pitch.
Whilst I'll never knock his commitment, his biggest contribution at the moment seems to be a high tackle count. Now, to be fair, most clubs have a guy doing that who'll be on less wages than wilkin and probably have an extra stone for going forward with.

We're in a salary capped game which favours the wrestle up front. Paying extra for a backrow with Wilkin's talents is probably not the most effecitve decision at the moment.