Re: Rush and KC : Mon Mar 26, 2012 5:32 pm  

St pete wrote:

Meli asked to play wing and got his way

What a silly post!

one of so many, i think she's trying to be a satarical poster like Saddened, but its not working

Re: Rush and KC : Mon Mar 26, 2012 5:36 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

Why is it silly? Meli has never been any good on the wing. Oh, he pulled out a performance on Sunday night, just as we all know he can against the big teams (except at Grand Finals). But then he disappears again. That's been the way with him since Anderson's time. I can very much see a whole bunch of egos directing play actually. Did Jon Wilkin play loose forward?

Mike rush and KC are no easy touch and will not be told what to do by any player.

They have worked with the players this week and both parties have had input but the last call is rush and KC.

Re: Rush and KC : Mon Mar 26, 2012 5:39 pm  

St pete wrote:

They have worked with the players this week and both parties have had input but the last call is rush and KC.

All (senior) parties had an input into the job lot according to Mike Rush's interview in this week's League Weekly.

Like I said, let's see how well that goes if things get sticky!

Re: Rush and KC : Mon Mar 26, 2012 5:40 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

Interesting. I don't know what position Brad Dwyer plays in but according to League Weekly, he sat on the bench for the full 80 minutes for Warrington on Friday night. I guess Tony Smith is no genius either?

Nor is Phil Veivers. He used only 16 players when Salford played us at Langtree Park. The back stayed on the bench, as did ours.

Well, everyone has an opinion don't they? For me playing a back on the bench is playing a man light in the modern game particularly in tough games, but some coaches might indeed prefer to have a back available to do a 1-for-1 swap if there's an injury. Each to their own. That still doesn't explain why we had Wheeler and Clough on the bench for the CC semi last year when they'd both only just come back from serious injury and couldn't have played (and indeed didn't play) more than 10 minutes of the game between them. I can appreciate the back on the bench as a tactical move to minimise disruption in the forwards if there's an injury (although I don't agree with it personally), but a coach that picks someone completely unfit and in no state to be able to play more than 10 minutes in that role is a coach that needs to be severely questioned in their methods.

Re: Rush and KC : Mon Mar 26, 2012 5:42 pm  

Northampton_Saint wrote:

Well, everyone has an opinion don't they? For me playing a back on the bench is playing a man light in the modern game particularly in tough games, but some coaches might indeed prefer to have a back available to do a 1-for-1 swap if there's an injury. Each to their own.

I think it was injury which drove Royce to be honest and I don't blame him, especially this season after last.

That still doesn't explain why we had Wheeler and Clough on the bench for the CC semi last year when they'd both only just come back from serious injury and couldn't have played (and indeed didn't play) more than 10 minutes of the game between them.

Did he have much choice at that time? We were seriously hard pushed for troops all through the season. I honestly can't remember.

Re: Rush and KC : Mon Mar 26, 2012 5:44 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

All (senior) parties had an input into the job lot according to Mike Rush's interview in this week's League Weekly.

Like I said, let's see how well that goes if things get sticky!

I've not read any rugby paper but isn't that what I just said?

Just for the record, not all players are over the moon at Royce losing his job, the was a few that was disappointed but not many.

One played in the u20s before the game and stormed off the pitch without doing the walk around with his team mates after the game.

Re: Rush and KC : Mon Mar 26, 2012 5:50 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

Why is it silly? Meli has never been any good on the wing.

No, he was just our best and most consistent player in that position over the whole of the 2009 and 2010 seasons (2009 GF brain explosion excepted) and our only threat out wide since Gidley's decline, that's all. But he made a lot of mistakes and was a bit pants in 2007 and 2008 which fits in nicely with our pre-formed opinions, so he must have been pants ever since, right?

God give me strength....

Re: Rush and KC : Mon Mar 26, 2012 5:57 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

...I don't blame him...

Time for a change of signature????

Re: Rush and KC : Mon Mar 26, 2012 6:52 pm  

Northampton_Saint wrote:

No, he was just our best and most consistent player in that position over the whole of the 2009 and 2010 seasons (2009 GF brain explosion excepted)

He was our ONLY player in that position over the whole of 2009 and 2010 (left wing, just before you get arsey). Although he did play in centre for a bit during Potter's reign and most people on here were relieved when he did because he was a defensive nightmare and will continue to be so until the day he retires.

Re: Rush and KC : Tue Mar 27, 2012 12:03 am  

SaintsFan wrote:

He was our ONLY player in that position over the whole of 2009 and 2010 (left wing, just before you get arsey). Although he did play in centre for a bit during Potter's reign and most people on here were relieved when he did because he was a defensive nightmare and will continue to be so until the day he retires.

OK..... I'll rephrase around your pedantry/denseness, whichever it is in this case.

He was our most consistent game-in, game-out performer including all other players in all other positions in the team, being fairly solid defensively and our only attacking threat in the 3/4s, over the whole of the 2009 and 2010 seasons. He also coincidentally played left wing most of the time in that period.

Do you see now, or should I buy a lump hammer to bang the point home further?