Re: 6 and 7 : Sat Jul 04, 2015 3:40 pm  

St pete wrote:

Are we talking super league history when the game went fully pro or we talking pre 95/96 when only one or two teams was fully pro?

Found my spreadsheet from the University of Leeds research papers, from the pre world war one era to present day involving championship, challenge cup and super league.

1 Wigan
2 St Helens
3 Leeds
4 Bradford
5 Warrington
6 Huddersfield
7 Hull
8 Widnes
9 Halifax
10 Hull KR
11 Oldham
12 Castleford
13 Swinton
14 Wakefield
15 Salford

Hull KR could in years to come, go to the dizzy heights of 9th place at the expense of Halifax. Wigan, St Helens and Leeds well ahead of the rest, would probably take about 6 years of Leeds or St Helens winning everything to catch up to Wigan.

Re: 6 and 7 : Sat Jul 04, 2015 5:44 pm  

bewareshadows wrote:

I don't get it, you ask a question, was burns worth the fee?

Were you expecting a different response, because the answer is simple, yes he was worth the fee.

He's not Tommy Martyn, but then who is???

He's a top notch competitor and has had some marvellous games for Saints. Please don't confuse the odd game on TV were you don't see him take on the line to equate with him being a player that was not worth putting some money out there to buy.

He's had his moments so far in the season, he's also had games were he has not had that touch of class, but classy or average he puts in 100% for the team. I'll take that any day. A player who puts in effort is never going to be put down at a club like Saints. Whether or not he is fast.

Players go through runs of form, at the moment Burns is on a bit of a average run of form. If he starts putting in those passes and cutting up teams in a few weeks, that's not going to make him a superstar, just because of a few good games. You have to see a player in the round and not just from game to game.

Was he worth the money. Damn Yes.

Add to that he's new player. Some players take 3 month to fit in and others take 12 month. He's a new halfback playing in a new system at new club with no regular halfback alongside him.

Re: 6 and 7 : Sat Jul 04, 2015 5:52 pm  

bewareshadows wrote:

I don't get it, you ask a question, was burns worth the fee?

Were you expecting a different response, because the answer is simple, yes he was worth the fee.

He's not Tommy Martyn, but then who is???

He's a top notch competitor and has had some marvellous games for Saints. Please don't confuse the odd game on TV were you don't see him take on the line to equate with him being a player that was not worth putting some money out there to buy.

He's had his moments so far in the season, he's also had games were he has not had that touch of class, but classy or average he puts in 100% for the team. I'll take that any day. A player who puts in effort is never going to be put down at a club like Saints. Whether or not he is fast.

Players go through runs of form, at the moment Burns is on a bit of a average run of form. If he starts putting in those passes and cutting up teams in a few weeks, that's not going to make him a superstar, just because of a few good games. You have to see a player in the round and not just from game to game.

Was he worth the money. Damn Yes.

Would he be worth the fee if he wasn't Australian?

Re: 6 and 7 : Sat Jul 04, 2015 5:56 pm  

headhunter wrote:

Would he be worth the fee if he wasn't Australian?

I don't get your persistent question about him being a aussie. Was kyle Amor worth the fee we paid?

Re: 6 and 7 : Sat Jul 04, 2015 6:17 pm  

headhunter wrote:

Would he be worth the fee if he wasn't Australian?

Yes.

The fee was required as there were halfbacks tied up to long term deals everywhere.

We also wanted Kevin Brown but he was tied down to a huge deal at Widnes. We had no halfbacks and no idea if Walsh would return. If we had a fit Walsh and Lance was a great 6 would we have been in for burns? Probably not, but we where, were we where.

Yes Pete, predicted it 4 years ago.

But in the end we needed a halfback, who else could we have got in August last year????

Please name a half that was off the class required and going for free?

Re: 6 and 7 : Sat Jul 04, 2015 6:40 pm  

St pete wrote:

I don't get your persistent question about him being a aussie. Was kyle Amor worth the fee we paid?

I just think Burns is one of these players that comes over and ends up being massively overrated just because he played in the NRL. If this was an English player do you really think people would be happy with his performances or consider him to be good enough to be playing for a team near the top of the league, or that Saints would've even been interested in him? Heck, aren't you the guy who said that you wouldn't pay a transfer fee for Theo Fages, who at 20 years old is already a far better player than Burns?

Re: 6 and 7 : Sat Jul 04, 2015 9:52 pm  

headhunter wrote:

I just think Burns is one of these players that comes over and ends up being massively overrated just because he played in the NRL. If this was an English player do you really think people would be happy with his performances or consider him to be good enough to be playing for a team near the top of the league, or that Saints would've even been interested in him? Heck, aren't you the guy who said that you wouldn't pay a transfer fee for Theo Fages, who at 20 years old is already a far better player than Burns?

You mean the Theo Fages that that's had half of good season ? I remember Sean Devine have 3 good games and he was the next Alex Murphy and remember Ste Tyrer having few good games and being hailed as next Jamie Lyon.

My point is, you can watch a young kid for half a season and pay £800,000 that salford want or pay £60,000 for a player that's played NRL and super league with a history you can look back on. Imo it's sinple

Re: 6 and 7 : Sat Jul 04, 2015 11:57 pm  

St pete wrote:

You mean the Theo Fages that that's had half of good season ? I remember Sean Devine have 3 good games and he was the next Alex Murphy and remember Ste Tyrer having few good games and being hailed as next Jamie Lyon.

My point is, you can watch a young kid for half a season and pay £800,000 that salford want or pay £60,000 for a player that's played NRL and super league with a history you can look back on. Imo it's sinple

I'm not talking about paying £800k, just that Burns isn't a great player, he's a mid-table plodder and always has been in both Super League and the NRL. He's also older than Terry Campese, who was a legit star player that most people claim to be past it.

Re: 6 and 7 : Sun Jul 05, 2015 12:09 am  

Burns WAS a good player in his first season at KR. Even the most one-eyed Robin admits this.

He then went down injured and has never really been the same since. Whether the injury robbed him of what pace he had or his legs just wore out naturally - I really don't know. My guess is that Saints figured Burns just needed time to get over his injury without knowing his legs were permanently shot. It's a common mistake - but one which you really should pick up either through your scouts or during the fitness test prior to signing.

Re: 6 and 7 : Sun Jul 05, 2015 3:51 pm  

The things is with Burns is, he's always done more defending than your average half backs, and he's no spring chicken at, 31.