: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:38 pm  

NickyKiss wrote:

he played against the biggest name in the game only last Friday

EVERTON1 wrote:

in your opinion not for the last 10 years anyway

And the opinion of most neutrals, rugby fans in the southern hemisphere and France.

: Wed Mar 25, 2009 4:35 pm  

EVERTON1 wrote:

in your opinion not for the last 10 years anyway

Didn't say the best team.

Wigan without doubt are the biggest name in the game and only a one eyed opposition fan would say otherwise.

: Wed Mar 25, 2009 5:22 pm  

NickyKiss wrote:

Didn't say the best team.

Wigan without doubt are the biggest name in the game and only a one eyed opposition fan would say otherwise.

Always rely on you to post something sensible.

: Wed Mar 25, 2009 6:18 pm  

I think Myler looks to be a class act and impresses me whenever I see him play, particularly when you consider that he is playing in such a poor team.

[DaveO]

: Wed Mar 25, 2009 11:28 pm  

THELAST3YARDS wrote:

Hmmmm.....

Look at the 1st 17 of the trophy winning Saints sides and look were the majority (most) of the players came from. It wasn't Saints academy.

Dave

: Thu Mar 26, 2009 8:46 am  

DaveO wrote:

Look at the 1st 17 of the trophy winning Saints sides and look were the majority (most) of the players came from. It wasn't Saints academy.

Dave

You said basically based on nothing else!

Each trophy winning squad has had a consistent input from Saints academy.

To say Saints success is based on basically nothing but transfers in is pure folly!

[DaveO]

: Thu Mar 26, 2009 8:50 am  

THELAST3YARDS wrote:

You said basically based on nothing else!

No I said it was BASICALLY based on nothing else and it was. The majority were bought in players with about three or four locally produced players.

Each trophy winning squad has had a consistent input from Saints academy.

No its not. List he players yourself and put their original clubs against their name. Over the SL years the the majority of all Saints winning sides (and I don't just mean 9 out of 17 I mean most of them) have been transferred in. Saints GF team of 2007 had 12 out of 17 transferred in with only 2 of the starting 13 Saints produced, Wellens and Cunningham.

Go further back when Sculthorpe was playing and I think it was even more.

To say Saints success is based on basically nothing but transfers in is pure folly!

You don't know much about the club you support do you?

Dave

: Thu Mar 26, 2009 9:12 am  

DaveO wrote:

No I said it was BASICALLY based on nothing else and it was. The majority were bought in players with about three or four locally produced players.



No its not. List he players yourself and put their original clubs against their name. Over the SL years the the majority of all Saints winning sides (and I don't just mean 9 out of 17 I mean most of them) have been transferred in. Saints GF team of 2007 had 12 out of 17 transferred in with only 2 of the starting 13 Saints produced, Wellens and Cunningham.

Go further back when Sculthorpe was playing and I think it was even more.



You don't know much about the club you support do you?

Dave

same can be said about most teams in history, in any sport.

: Thu Mar 26, 2009 9:14 am  

I said consistent input from the academy

wellens hayes haigh arnold stewart barrow leathem cunningham roby graham bennett stankevitch jonkers clough

off top of my head all won GF's, SL's or Challenge Cups

how consistent do you want?

: Thu Mar 26, 2009 9:19 am  

THELAST3YARDS wrote:

I said consistent input from the academy

wellens hayes haigh arnold stewart barrow leathem cunningham roby graham bennett stankevitch jonkers clough

off top of my head all won GF's, SL's or Challenge Cups

how consistent do you want?

You're stretching here and you know it!!