Re: New Pops are not No1 prioity : Sat Aug 15, 2015 6:27 am  

morleys_deckchair wrote:

Now we have sims and hill, when they go off, we are f****d.... without those 2 we are gutless and weak.

We really need to look into splitting them up and starting one from the bench. If my memory isn't playing tricks on me we always tried to do this with Morley and Carvell? I suppose it's too late now anyway.

Re: New Pops are not No1 prioity : Sat Aug 15, 2015 8:34 am  

I am going to give England one more season, he was very good in World Series game and got injured, he has been playing with injections etc all season, till Leeds game which has possibly finished his season,, I think with another big quality prop, hill Simms England fully fit will be more than enough,, hilly had carvell and Morley to coach and guide him through, and he has turned out quality England squad standard, I don't think England has had that luxury,, he came from championship so it is obvious he isn't the finished artical and needs coaching, so I still think with injury free, and another great prop around him I would give him the 4th slot,,

Re: New Pops are not No1 prioity : Sat Aug 15, 2015 8:56 am  

Interestingly if you look at the Saints forum you'll find exactly the same gripe about props, and ditto on the Wigan forum...spotting a theme yet?

Re: New Pops are not No1 prioity : Sat Aug 15, 2015 9:09 am  

Don't forget, a couple of years ago, we had Cooper in the mix as a prop who became a scapegoat for some on here ,but is now ripping trees up in Oz.

Re: New Pops are not No1 prioity : Sat Aug 15, 2015 9:16 am  

Captain Hook wrote:

Interestingly if you look at the Saints forum you'll find exactly the same gripe about props, and ditto on the Wigan forum...spotting a theme yet?

I know both players have come good, but would Saints really have entertained Walmesley & Amor a few years ago? Any replacement props would probably have come from overseas, but even the antipodeans are not producing many surplus props these days.

Re: New Pops are not No1 prioity : Sat Aug 15, 2015 10:26 am  

ninearches wrote:

I know both players have come good, but would Saints really have entertained Walmesley & Amor a few years ago? Any replacement props would probably have come from overseas, but even the antipodeans are not producing many surplus props these days.

Their view seems to be Amor is lightweight. I think Hill and Walmesley are the exception in coming up a division, but shows it's worth taking a punt ala England.
Perhaps it also shows that we were spoiled for a few years with an exceptional crop of SL props and we didn't realise it at the time.

Re: New Pops are not No1 prioity : Sat Aug 15, 2015 6:10 pm  

Starting pack of Hill, Clark, Sims, Currie, Hughes and Grix with a bench from Westwood (at prop), Harrison, Dwyer, Evans, Philbin, Laithwaite, England, Wilde, G King, etc could be better, but equally doesn't look too shabby. But one more quality monster prop/second row would good.

Russell, Ratchford or Gidley at full back. Wings from Lineham, Monaghan, Ormsby, Penny, Evans or Russell. Sandow with Gidley or Ratchford (Patton/O'Brien?) in the halves. All not too bad.

Centres from Atkins, Ratchford, Evans, T King, Monaghan (maybe Currie and Hughes, but that would leave the pack painfully short) is most definitely our weakest area.

Hopefully there are still signings in the pipeline and all concerned are waiting for the player in question to finish their season before announcements are made.

Re: New Pops are not No1 prioity : Sun Aug 16, 2015 11:53 am  

If we were able to utilise roys ptb better we wouldn't be complaining about him so much.