Re: Time to recall jamie foster? : Sun Aug 19, 2012 10:27 pm  

Billinge_Lump wrote:

But his initial stint in the team showed he had the ability to take the high ball safely and his defence was never that bad, unlike Gardner who appeared to have to learn how to catch a bomb for example.

Coincidentally, his debut stint - under Potter - was playing on the right side and outside one of the best centres in the business. A winger is very dependent on his centre. Also, Foster has subsequently played on the left side, which may not be as good for him as the right. But other than that I think his confidence has taken a real knock, made worse by being permanently dropped from the one team he wanted to play for. Had Rush had a modicum of sense concerning young people he would have realised that expressing faith in them is often the way forward. Even if he'd been played for a couple of games and then rested for a couple, that might have been a ton better for his self worth than being dumped into oblivion and then shipped out to the furthest extremities of the known universe.

Re: Time to recall jamie foster? : Sun Aug 19, 2012 10:58 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

If you don't know the answer then I suggest you borrow a biology textbook from your local library and look up male human physical development. Then, when you have discovered the answer, pop on here and apologise to me for calling me a troll, k?

You are making yourself look silly with statements like that.

I don't need to as they are littered all over the house, but I have never read one (or any study of any kind) that suggest a male with a small bone structure has an inability to gain muscle size and weight. I never will read one, because you have just made it up. Hence, troll, or at best someone who is talking outside of their knowledge, I mean, suggesting Biology books? Come on.

If you think the second point was silly, and that spending '24 hours in a gym' without eating to a calorie surplus will lead to muscle and weight gain, then you clearly don't know what you're talking about.


Edit - I'll give you your due, your reputation on this board is well deserved as I've been well and truly sucked in there. I let my troll guard down for one day and I'm like the fish that Rogues drags out of sea on here with ease Normal service resumed.

Re: Time to recall jamie foster? : Sun Aug 19, 2012 11:01 pm  

Billinge_Lump wrote:

Goulding is 2 years older than Foster and males can continue to grow until their mid twenties. It was only last year that Goulding was being held out as weak physically and would never make it

You mean when he was being selected for England?

Re: Time to recall jamie foster? : Mon Aug 20, 2012 8:06 pm  

Smurf wrote:

You mean when he was being selected for England?

How many caps does he have?

Re: Time to recall jamie foster? : Mon Aug 20, 2012 8:50 pm  

Saints don't see Jamie's size as a issue at all.

Re: Time to recall jamie foster? : Mon Aug 20, 2012 9:10 pm  

St pete wrote:

Saints don't see Jamie's size as a issue at all.

They should. For me if your that slight you need to be very elusive or lightening quick , sadly Foster is neither.

Re: Time to recall jamie foster? : Mon Aug 20, 2012 9:27 pm  

Confidence STILL shot - knows he hasn't the pace.

Fairly safe but close to voluntary tackles, he is so keen to get to ground.

Kicking brilliant................

Seems to have lost positional sense, Ben Crooks clean break Saturday - he was too close.

Happened 3 - 4 times last week against Catalans, either too close, too deep, too flat.......

Not a top 6 starter IMO.

Re: Time to recall jamie foster? : Mon Aug 20, 2012 11:17 pm  

Billinge_Lump wrote:

How many caps does he have?

No idea. But he was good enough to be starting on the wing against Australia and New Zealand on their own patch two years ago, or the best we had at the time at least, I remember that much.

For the record I'm not knocking Foster one bit (shouldn't have even entered the debate, or non-debate with a troll as it turned out, but I was fooled into opposing made up science), and I desperately want him to succeed. Nothing would please me more. I believe he needs to beef up and waiting two years to do it isn't going to help him one bit if his confidence going into collision is shot until then and by that time and he ends up shipped off to Leigh. His passing game is also wasted on the wing in my opinion, he has good hands, certainly better than Goulding's were at that point.

Re: Time to recall jamie foster? : Tue Aug 21, 2012 11:53 am  

SaintsFan wrote:

Coincidentally, his debut stint - under Potter - was playing on the right side and outside one of the best centres in the business. A winger is very dependent on his centre. Also, Foster has subsequently played on the left side, which may not be as good for him as the right. But other than that I think his confidence has taken a real knock, made worse by being permanently dropped from the one team he wanted to play for. Had Rush had a modicum of sense concerning young people he would have realised that expressing faith in them is often the way forward. Even if he'd been played for a couple of games and then rested for a couple, that might have been a ton better for his self worth than being dumped into oblivion and then shipped out to the furthest extremities of the known universe.

Totally agree with this. As I have heard of numerous people in the past Rush's working relationship with young players has alot left to be desired.

Re: Time to recall jamie foster? : Tue Aug 21, 2012 1:11 pm  

St pete wrote:

Saints don't see Jamie's size as a issue at all.

I think the issue is the size of his heart