Re: Mike Rush Down Under : Wed Mar 11, 2015 6:07 pm  

Magic Superbeetle wrote:

I believe so, and I try and keep track the current ooc list I keep updated is on page 3 of the transfers and contracts thread for me Ferres and Whitehead are the standouts of this years list, and it's a good excuse to gets some flamboyance into the pack.

Like I say, I quite like Clare, and would take him over Dawson, but I appreciate that's more personal preference over anything Dawson than anything else!

I think Ferres has gone back last two seasons but I think Id still go for him as he's a good player but Whitehead should be a target for sure!

Re: Mike Rush Down Under : Wed Mar 11, 2015 6:31 pm  

St pete wrote:

I think Ferres has gone back last two seasons but I think Id still go for him as he's a good player but Whitehead should be a target for sure!

You can say that about virtually any player at huddersfield - how Lunt goes at hkr will give a decent indication about how much it is to do with environment at huddersfield...

What Ferres, and the saints pack is lacking is a bit of flair which Whitehead would bring for sure.

I'd also really like us to make a play to bring back Armstrong from leigh. Would be great cover for the back 5, but I think it will depend on whether leigh get promoted...

Re: Mike Rush Down Under : Wed Mar 11, 2015 7:05 pm  

St pete wrote:

Why a FB ? We have a very good one in lomax and two very good back ups in makinson and swift.

Centre ? To replace Percy or Turner ?

FB and centre are positions we have covered and would be one hell of a waste money. We are blessed at FB.

We have to replace outgoing players so we 100% need to replace Mose who is going. Lance will be going also so we need to replace him. Walsh is 50/50 if he's going and much will depend on how he is when he's back.

I think we need a good hard working tough prop that can put long mins in to accompany Amor to help him out.

I'd like to see another Backrow brought in. A tackle buster that's mobile. I know we have Vea, Greenwood as first choice but I still feel greenwood is a littke green and few years off being the final article. We have flash, Wilkin and jones (if he stays) but all are pretty rubbish with the ball.

I think it's quite clear we cannot rely on Lomax for a full season and in an ideal world, which I believe this is what this thread is really about, I would replace turner.

Re: Mike Rush Down Under : Wed Mar 11, 2015 7:19 pm  

Albion wrote:

I think it's quite clear we cannot rely on Lomax for a full season and in an ideal world, which I believe this is what this thread is really about, I would replace turner.

With who?

Re: Mike Rush Down Under : Wed Mar 11, 2015 7:27 pm  

Albion wrote:

I think it's quite clear we cannot rely on Lomax for a full season and in an ideal world, which I believe this is what this thread is really about, I would replace turner.

I'm no Turner fan as you prob now. I think he's really soft and in fact think he's afraid of getting hurt but the are other positions we need Imo more than centre.

Re: Mike Rush Down Under : Thu Mar 12, 2015 8:36 am  

Leave Armstrong alone!! The lad is all class. Quick strong good feet good defence!! Key player and starter for is can't see him leaving if we are promoted

Re: Mike Rush Down Under : Thu Mar 12, 2015 9:50 am  

St pete wrote:

I'd like a prop that does what props should do. I think we can use Walmsley as impact prop who Imo brings much better impact than mose who I don't think gives us much impact at all. So Id like a big tough prop in the Amor mould.

Walmsley is the highest metre making prop in the league, averaging over 140m a match and made over 180m last week. He also puts in 18 carries and an average of 27 tackles a match,

Why would anybody ever want to reduce a prop with that level of quality to an impact prop......

One of the craziest ideas I've read.

Re: Mike Rush Down Under : Thu Mar 12, 2015 10:41 am  

SLS wrote:

Walmsley is the highest metre making prop in the league, averaging over 140m a match and made over 180m last week. He also puts in 18 carries and an average of 27 tackles a match,

Why would anybody ever want to reduce a prop with that level of quality to an impact prop......

One of the craziest ideas I've read.

This is a thread full of crazy ideas. I'm always astonished to read about how the pack is our priority. Yet anyone looking at the current Saints team must surely conclude that it's the backs where we have a problem. We have the strongest pack in the league, with plentiful cover. The only possible fly in that ointment in the medium term is cover for Roby - he can't go on like this forever. Other than that, Mose will go, but will leave far less of a hole than the absence of Walmsley or Amor, and can be filled by our internal candidates.

It's the backs where we look weak in most positions.

Fullback - Lomax is fast heading into Wheeler territory with injuries, and his cover is effectively Wellens, who must surely retire next year.

Wing - Makinson and Swift are competent wingers, although neither would get into the Wigan or Leeds sides. They're both very small men, comparatively, and as breakaway length of the field tries are increasingly rare in SL, that's a handicap when the main winger role is to return the ball strongly. Similarly, both have some defensive weaknesses. There is no notable competition for their places.

Centre - Turner and Percival are, again, competent. Again neither would get into the Leeds, Wigan or Warrington sides. Percival may well develop into a top centre, but he's certainly not there yet. Turner offers good utility value because of his size, but is not a strike centre. None of our outside backs are the sort to strike fear into the opposition fans when they get the ball in space. The only competition for their places is a converted second-row or prop like Jones or LMS.

Stand-off - I'm a fan of Burns. I think this is now a settled position - we just need to ensure we have cover, as there's currently no reserve option.

Scrum-half - If Walsh is fit, and if Walsh is staying, then we have the best scrum-half in the competition. If he's not fit or not staying, then we have nothing but Wilkin, who does a great job filling in, but is a forward, and not a creative half-back.

If Rush has cash to spend, then surely he'll be looking to strengthen the back division. We're the best team in the league, and we're there purely by virtue of a fearsomely effective pack. Perhaps the best illustration of the problem is that there are several present and future candidates for England places in the pack, with Amor, Walmsley, Roby already there, Wilkin and LMS as previous internationals, and Greenwood a distinct future possibility. In the backs, Lomax's call on the white jersey now seems a distant prospect, and none of the threequarters are currently anywhere near international selection.

Splash the cash, by all means. But splash it at the back.

Re: Mike Rush Down Under : Thu Mar 12, 2015 11:02 am  

Roy Haggerty wrote:

This is a thread full of crazy ideas. I'm always astonished to read about how the pack is our priority. Yet anyone looking at the current Saints team must surely conclude that it's the backs where we have a problem. We have the strongest pack in the league, with plentiful cover. The only possible fly in that ointment in the medium term is cover for Roby - he can't go on like this forever. Other than that, Mose will go, but will leave far less of a hole than the absence of Walmsley or Amor, and can be filled by our internal candidates.

It's the backs where we look weak in most positions.

Fullback - Lomax is fast heading into Wheeler territory with injuries, and his cover is effectively Wellens, who must surely retire next year.

Wing - Makinson and Swift are competent wingers, although neither would get into the Wigan or Leeds sides. They're both very small men, comparatively, and as breakaway length of the field tries are increasingly rare in SL, that's a handicap when the main winger role is to return the ball strongly. Similarly, both have some defensive weaknesses. There is no notable competition for their places.

Centre - Turner and Percival are, again, competent. Again neither would get into the Leeds, Wigan or Warrington sides. Percival may well develop into a top centre, but he's certainly not there yet. Turner offers good utility value because of his size, but is not a strike centre. None of our outside backs are the sort to strike fear into the opposition fans when they get the ball in space. The only competition for their places is a converted second-row or prop like Jones or LMS.

Stand-off - I'm a fan of Burns. I think this is now a settled position - we just need to ensure we have cover, as there's currently no reserve option.

Scrum-half - If Walsh is fit, and if Walsh is staying, then we have the best scrum-half in the competition. If he's not fit or not staying, then we have nothing but Wilkin, who does a great job filling in, but is a forward, and not a creative half-back.

If Rush has cash to spend, then surely he'll be looking to strengthen the back division. We're the best team in the league, and we're there purely by virtue of a fearsomely effective pack. Perhaps the best illustration of the problem is that there are several present and future candidates for England places in the pack, with Amor, Walmsley, Roby already there, Wilkin and LMS as previous internationals, and Greenwood a distinct future possibility. In the backs, Lomax's call on the white jersey now seems a distant prospect, and none of the threequarters are currently anywhere near international selection.

Splash the cash, by all means. But splash it at the back.

I disagree on a couple of points, Makinson and Percival would make it at any team in the comp imo. The possible exception is Leeds, but they have an overpowered backline, because they're spine is playing for unders.

What our backline is however, is very suited to our style of play. They're quick, and very good at exploiting holes our big forwards create, and we have the halfbacks to put them in a position to do so. So the situation is simple, keep making big holes = the backs are not a problem.

I thought we were running a prop under this year, as did most at the start of the year, and love him or hate him, Mose is hard to replace for sheer size. 2 props of SL standard aren't cheap, and even less so if you're competing in the Aussie market, where decent props are like gold dust.

Beyond that, you then actually have to look who is available who would improve us. The 3/4 ooc in SL this year is pitiful. And the Jamie Lyons and Matt Gidleys of the world just aren't coming over at the moment. So we either find ourselves with an Aussie version of Turner, or we look to which positions does have quality and adapt our team and recruitment around that. I'd prefer the latter imo.

Re: Mike Rush Down Under : Thu Mar 12, 2015 11:56 am  

SLS wrote:

Walmsley is the highest metre making prop in the league, averaging over 140m a match and made over 180m last week. He also puts in 18 carries and an average of 27 tackles a match,

Why would anybody ever want to reduce a prop with that level of quality to an impact prop......

One of the craziest ideas I've read.

Where and when did I say he's a impact prop? My point is, that Mose doesn't bring any impact at all compared to walmsley!

I never once said Id use him as a impact prop but I said he gives more impact than mose when he comes on as he skittles players!

That ok with you Wayne Bennett ?