Don't think that's fair or accurate at all. The last few games, yes, but over the season IMO he's been one of our best players.
Agree with this - I think it's his fitness (injury wise) that has hampered him in certain games this year but overall he's done well for us. Scored some tries and plays at and through the line.
This is in no way a criticism of Westerman but I think we've played better when we haven't had the ball playing loose forward role as part of our attacking structure. I think that when we play like that there is some confusion over who is making play. We've been better when the halves have (attempted) to call the shots exclusively.
Agree with this - I think it's his fitness (injury wise) that has hampered him in certain games this year but overall he's done well for us. Scored some tries and plays at and through the line.
This is in no way a criticism of Westerman but I think we've played better when we haven't had the ball playing loose forward role as part of our attacking structure. I think that when we play like that there is some confusion over who is making play. We've been better when the halves have (attempted) to call the shots exclusively.
I don't think it's so much having the loose forward as part of the attacking structure as it is trying to have both the loose forward and fullback involved (as well as hooker), that's when it becomes too many and gets confused IMO. FWIW, I'd personally go with the loose forward being involved, as I prefer Shaul over Rankin and ball-playing is not one of his strengths.
I don't think it's so much having the loose forward as part of the attacking structure as it is trying to have both the loose forward and fullback involved (as well as hooker), that's when it becomes too many and gets confused IMO. FWIW, I'd personally go with the loose forward being involved, as I prefer Shaul over Rankin and ball-playing is not one of his strengths.
I would play Shaul anyway now for a few games. Rankin tried hard afterwards but his FB play against moon was not good enough and meant we lost momentum early.
I would play Shaul anyway now for a few games. Rankin tried hard afterwards but his FB play against moon was not good enough and meant we lost momentum early.
I possibly go against the grain on here, but I personally don't think Rankin is as good as is sometimes made out. He's not good enough offensively for halfback, or defensively for fullback. Their comparative form for a spell meant his selection over Shaul was justified, but I still wouldn't be particularly bothered if he went elsewhere whereas I'd be disappointed to lose Shaul.
I possibly go against the grain on here, but I personally don't think Rankin is as good as is sometimes made out. He's not good enough offensively for halfback, or defensively for fullback. Their comparative form for a spell meant his selection over Shaul was justified, but I still wouldn't be particularly bothered if he went elsewhere whereas I'd be disappointed to lose Shaul.
I agree - Rankin is decent but not good enough to justify a quota spot or the cap space an aussie commands. Im not saying he wouldnt be a good quota player for somebody else but because we have Shaul (who in my opinion is a better FB, both defensively and his support play) we should be investing Rankins cash/quota space elsewhere.
I agree - Rankin is decent but not good enough to justify a quota spot or the cap space an aussie commands. Im not saying he wouldnt be a good quota player for somebody else but because we have Shaul (who in my opinion is a better FB, both defensively and his support play) we should be investing Rankins cash/quota space elsewhere.
If the decision was based on quota places, IMO, I'd get rid of Michaels, Feka (although he might not count on the quota) & Sa before Rankin. Is the quota still 5?
Who we got signed up for 2016? Mini, Pritchard & Talanoa?
Shaul would be my preferred FB too, same reasons you give. But I'd like to keep Rankin if we can.
If the decision was based on quota places, IMO, I'd get rid of Michaels, Feka (although he might not count on the quota) & Sa before Rankin. Is the quota still 5?
Who we got signed up for 2016? Mini, Pritchard & Talanoa?
Shaul would be my preferred FB too, same reasons you give. But I'd like to keep Rankin if we can.
No point in keeping Rankin (Who will be good money to play back up)
We have Shaul and Naughton who can play FB and either half gets injured then it's time for HTW or Dean to be given a chance.
Pritchard Mini Talanoa Plus two new backs should be quota places.
Problem is, who is there available, and who would come?
We stand every chance of battling it out in the middle tier, I wouldn't b surprised if we have outline agreements in place based on where we actually finished, would make sense for both parties.
No point in keeping Rankin (Who will be good money to play back up)
We have Shaul and Naughton who can play FB and either half gets injured then it's time for HTW or Dean to be given a chance.
Pritchard Mini Talanoa Plus two new backs should be quota places.
Fair points. HTW and/or Dean I'd hope would be ready to step up if injuries occurred next season. Are they both signed up and training with the first team at the moment?
If losing Rankin meant we're able to sign a top three-quarter, then I'd be all for it. Generally speaking, I'd like to keep him if we can, I think he's a useful player to have in the squad.
Problem is, who is there available, and who would come?
We stand every chance of battling it out in the middle tier, I wouldn't b surprised if we have outline agreements in place based on where we actually finished, would make sense for both parties.
If clause if we finish in the middle 8's? Or do you mean if we get relegated to the Championship?
