Re: Daryl Clark : Thu Jun 19, 2014 3:52 pm  

Vespid_Wire wrote:

The way Higham's playing this season, I wouldn't class him as a has-been..

Not one for the future though is he? Plus if we were to sign him all the trolls would immediately take to twitter and this forum yanking themselves about our 'Dad's Army' recruitment policy.

Re: Daryl Clark : Thu Jun 19, 2014 3:54 pm  

theredshed wrote:

Not one for the future though is he? Plus if we were to sign him all the trolls would immediately take to twitter and this forum yanking themselves about our 'Dad's Army' recruitment policy.

Yeah he's gunna see his career out at Wire no doubt, probably retire end of next season.

Re: Daryl Clark : Thu Jun 19, 2014 4:17 pm  

Vespid_Wire wrote:

Red John wrote:

Mickey Higham!!?? Mickey Bloody Higham!!?? Nobby's gone. We don't have to sign has-beens now.

The way Higham's playing this season, I wouldn't class him as a has-been..

He's 33. What do you think his form be like next season? or the season after? or the season after that?

Re: Daryl Clark : Fri Jun 20, 2014 8:54 am  

Red John wrote:

He's 33. What do you think his form be like next season? or the season after? or the season after that?

Dumbest response I've seen on here to date.

If he's a has-been he'd be playing woeful now; he isn't. He's playing brilliantly.

He'll retire when he's good and ready (probably next year) and until that day will give 100%.

Re: Daryl Clark : Fri Jun 20, 2014 9:01 am  

Vespid_Wire wrote:

Red John wrote:

He's 33. What do you think his form be like next season? or the season after? or the season after that?

Dumbest response I've seen on here to date.

If he's a has-been he'd be playing woeful now; he isn't. He's playing brilliantly.

He'll retire when he's good and ready (probably next year) and until that day will give 100%.

I appreciate you're upset and embarrassed about being pulled up over your 'delusional' post, but really? It's a series of questions. What's dumb about that? Do you think he'll be playing to whatever level you think he's playing at now in one, two or three years time?

Re: Daryl Clark : Fri Jun 20, 2014 9:36 am  

Red John wrote:

I appreciate you're upset and embarrassed about being pulled up over your 'delusional' post, but really? It's a series of questions. What's dumb about that? Do you think he'll be playing to whatever level you think he's playing at now in one, two or three years time?

You're missing the point completely.

You're saying he's a has-been but he's playing well. Has-been's are players that were good but are now past it. Higham isn't past it yet.

Re: Daryl Clark : Fri Jun 20, 2014 10:22 am  

Regardless of Higham playing well in your opinion this year, he is past his best so theoretically he is a has-been. As in, 'has been' better in the past. It's not a criticism, time catches up with every player.

There's nothing to be ashamed about having 'has been' players in your squad, we have several and all teams in Superleague have them. They all contribute, just not to the same level they could at their peak.

Re: Daryl Clark : Fri Jun 20, 2014 1:45 pm  

Vespid_Wire wrote:

You're missing the point completely.

You're saying he's a has-been but he's playing well. Has-been's are players that were good but are now past it. Higham isn't past it yet.

Theredshed's post just up there sums up what I mean. Remember, we're talking about Mickey in the context of a potential Salford signing, so that's not going to be until 2015 at the earliest. No matter what standard he's playing to, he's 33 now, 34 by the start of 2015 and age catches up with us all. He's never likely to see the inside of an international shirt again (although, to be fair, he's not seen the inside of many in the past either), and, I suspect, he won't be as effective next year or the year after. Ergo, if we were to sign him, we'd be signing a has-been.

Broadening it a bit, a signing like that is what you'd see (perhaps unfairly) as a typical Nobby signing. In fact, to some extent, a typical Salford signing. We've had probably more than our fair share of GB internationals playing for us over the years, but they all, pretty much to a man, played for us after their international careers were over. It's something we moved away from under Karl Harrison, but seemed to be creeping back towards under Nobby. It's one of the reasons why I disagree with the view that seems to pop up on the Warrington forum that Marwan was wrong to remove him.

Re: Daryl Clark : Fri Jun 20, 2014 6:33 pm  

Red John wrote:

Theredshed's post just up there sums up what I mean. Remember, we're talking about Mickey in the context of a potential Salford signing, so that's not going to be until 2015 at the earliest. No matter what standard he's playing to, he's 33 now, 34 by the start of 2015 and age catches up with us all. He's never likely to see the inside of an international shirt again (although, to be fair, he's not seen the inside of many in the past either), and, I suspect, he won't be as effective next year or the year after. Ergo, if we were to sign him, we'd be signing a has-been.

Broadening it a bit, a signing like that is what you'd see (perhaps unfairly) as a typical Nobby signing. In fact, to some extent, a typical Salford signing. We've had probably more than our fair share of GB internationals playing for us over the years, but they all, pretty much to a man, played for us after their international careers were over. It's something we moved away from under Karl Harrison, but seemed to be creeping back towards under Nobby. It's one of the reasons why I disagree with the view that seems to pop up on the Warrington forum that Marwan was wrong to remove him.

Fair enough. In the context of a Salford signing he would be a has-been yes. We'll probably get one more season out of him.

Re: Daryl Clark : Fri Jun 20, 2014 6:52 pm  

I thought the lad from Kr had been signed up by a Nrl club. As for Logan looked poor at Wigan but seems to be playing to decent standard for you boys.