Re: Theo Fages : Mon Feb 22, 2016 12:19 pm  

John Gilbert Reds wrote:

I don't buy that Theo is inexperienced, he has played over 60 Super League games. I couldn't believe that Cunningham chose a back-rower at stand-off, a stand-off at hooker as well as an actual inexperienced kid as interchange hooker, all above Theo. Madness.

Welcome to KC's world.

Re: Theo Fages : Mon Feb 22, 2016 1:19 pm  

John Gilbert Reds wrote:

I don't buy that Theo is inexperienced, he has played over 60 Super League games. I couldn't believe that Cunningham chose a back-rower at stand-off, a stand-off at hooker as well as an actual inexperienced kid as interchange hooker, all above Theo. Madness.

He's played over sixty super league games ... for Salford.

Re: Theo Fages : Mon Feb 22, 2016 4:29 pm  

St pete wrote:

I'm giving peyroux time. He's only played two games. Not done much wrong and not done anything great but tine will tell.

Tasi looks poor imo. I put his last season at Salford in which is was very poor down to the fact he was at a club with lots of problems on and off the field but he's looked the same this year. His first season at Salford he looked good and was hoping for thst form. He looks soft, lightweight and tbh he looks like he's not interested.

I think Peyroux will do ok for us...from what I saw in NRL he seemed very good with ball in hand going forward but his defence in the centre could be suspect at times, although he wont be playing against the same quality centre over here so that might help us.

Fully agree on Tasi - imo he has been the worst forward we have used this season. He offers nothing going forward and is soft in defence. Like you, I was hoping his form last season was down to issues off the field and a fresh start could get him back playing well but from what he has shown so far he looks like a total waste of money. I'd say Richards offers more than him and deserves a spot in 17 before Tasi right now

Re: Theo Fages : Mon Feb 22, 2016 5:46 pm  

KC is on a loser with respect to Fages whatever happens. If KC keeps him until he's ready and then Fages plays brilliantly, we'll all say Fages should have played earlier. If he doesn't play brilliantly we'll all say he was a poor signing. Who'd be a coach?

Re: Theo Fages : Mon Feb 22, 2016 7:19 pm  

Simeon Stylites wrote:

KC is on a loser with respect to Fages whatever happens. If KC keeps him until he's ready and then Fages plays brilliantly, we'll all say Fages should have played earlier. If he doesn't play brilliantly we'll all say he was a poor signing. Who'd be a coach?

Nonsense. If he's not ready for Super League after 60 appearances then he never will be. He should have played from the start of the season without this messing about period.

Re: Theo Fages : Mon Feb 22, 2016 7:31 pm  

Is this the same Salford which was a laughing stock for practically all of last season? The same Salford which threatened to redefine the meaning of the word "shambles"?

We're saying that sixty games playing under Salford's regime is EQUIVALENT to sixty games at Saints?

Seriously?

Re: Theo Fages : Mon Feb 22, 2016 8:10 pm  

Mugwump wrote:

Is this the same Salford which was a laughing stock for practically all of last season? The same Salford which threatened to redefine the meaning of the word "shambles"?

We're saying that sixty games playing under Salford's regime is EQUIVALENT to sixty games at Saints?

Seriously?

It's 66 games at super league level and that's a fact. It's 63 games at super league level more than Knowles.

Fages also played for France 7 times.

Re: Theo Fages : Mon Feb 22, 2016 11:45 pm  

Mugwump wrote:

Is this the same Salford which was a laughing stock for practically all of last season? The same Salford which threatened to redefine the meaning of the word "shambles"?

We're saying that sixty games playing under Salford's regime is EQUIVALENT to sixty games at Saints?

Seriously?

How is 60 games for Salford different to 60 games for Saints ? they play the same teams don't they ?

Re: Theo Fages : Tue Feb 23, 2016 12:17 am  

brook40 wrote:

How is 60 games for Salford different to 60 games for Saints ? they play the same teams don't they ?

It's different because since the beginning of SL the demand that players AT THE VERY LEAST are expected to finish in a playoff slot and get damned close to an Old Trafford appearance is what Saints players deal with as a matter of routine and Salford players demonstrably do not.

To be honest I'm amazed I need to illustrate this point. It's like saying 60 games playing for Manchester City or Chelsea or Barcelona or Real Madrid is equivalent to 60 games playing for AFC Bournemouth or Levante.

Re: Theo Fages : Tue Feb 23, 2016 6:20 am  

Some might say playing 66 games for Salford as a young kid in a side that's struggled yet he's stood out Is harder than playing 66 games for Saints with its so called best pack in super league and all its strike players