Re: Time to recall jamie foster? : Tue Aug 21, 2012 2:20 pm  

He is staying at Hull http://www1.skysports.com/rugby-league/ ... 10/8007628

He is staying at Hull http://www1.skysports.com/rugby-league/ ... 10/8007628

Re: Time to recall jamie foster? : Tue Aug 21, 2012 2:31 pm  

SomersetSaint wrote:

I think the issue is the size of his heart

I think thats unfair. What draws you to that conclusion btw?

Re: Time to recall jamie foster? : Tue Aug 21, 2012 2:32 pm  

To be fair, he might not be on top form, but Briscoe at full back has been shocking.

Perhaps if they move him back on the wing and Jamie to Full back, they may fair better.
A week concetrating on a positional move may sharpen him up and, even if he still sucks at#1, at least they've got a decent winger in briscoe, rather than underperformers in two shirts.

Full back would make a better use of his skills, in terms of his ball handling, which he doesn't get to use on the wing.

Re: Time to recall jamie foster? : Tue Aug 21, 2012 8:59 pm  

It's a confidence problem with Jamie and I also think he thought he was better than he was, he believed the hype and it come back to bite him.

Re: Time to recall jamie foster? : Tue Aug 21, 2012 9:41 pm  

Smurf wrote:

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.

I'd forgotten all about that, you are correct. I'm just going off what Wigan fans were saying on their board. Probably not the best policy lol.

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.

I agree. I don't think that we should wait on him building bulk, just that whilst he may not be able to put a load on now, it may happen for him in a few years. If he was 24 and still at this point, then fair enough, I just don't agree with writing off youngsters, especially ones that have shown decent potential, just because they aren't world beaters at 21 (I'm not suggesting you are doing this, just that it seems to be a general theme on the board recently).

Re: Time to recall jamie foster? : Wed Aug 22, 2012 7:35 am  

Is it not just a general theme to right off the whole of the Saints squad???

Re: Time to recall jamie foster? : Wed Aug 22, 2012 8:44 am  

No1 Saint wrote:

I think thats unfair. What draws you to that conclusion btw?

I think the fact that he bottled it against Karl Pryce, the biggest player with the smallest heart in rugby, was fair proof.

Re: Time to recall jamie foster? : Wed Aug 22, 2012 11:29 am  

SomersetSaint wrote:

I think the fact that he bottled it against Karl Pryce, the biggest player with the smallest heart in rugby, was fair proof.

Nah. It was your interpretation of events and that was ALL it was.

I certainly don't think he bottled it. He's shown incredible bravery on many occasions when catching the high ball and when tackling to convince me beyond a shadow of any doubt at all that he's as courageous player as the likes of Roby and Makinson.

Re: Time to recall jamie foster? : Wed Aug 22, 2012 11:33 am  

How many tries have been scored against him why he has been at Hull? Certainly Charnley scored three against him in the game at Wigan.

Re: Time to recall jamie foster? : Wed Aug 22, 2012 11:55 am  

Rogues Gallery wrote:

How many tries have been scored against him why he has been at Hull? Certainly Charnley scored three against him in the game at Wigan.

Well, I've just been on the Superleague webiste to check and its slightly unreliable in regards the order it lists the various numbers 2 and 5 and who shoud actually be played opposite each other.

Charnley got 3 and Flynn got 1. That's all I know definately went down Foster's side.
If you look at the other matches, there are other no tries scored by Jamie's opposite (assuming 2 face 5).
So, 5 matches, 27 tries scored against Hull, 4 scored by Jamie's opposite number. Given that wingers generally tend to score more than any other position, I'd say that is not a damning stat at all, especially given some woeful Hull performances against Wigan and Widnes.