Re: Jamie foster : Sun Feb 26, 2012 11:21 am  

So if. Saints win something this year with, in my opinion one of the weakest looking teams in a while, was james graham overrated?

But back to the point of the thread, I agree with Moz Deckchair, what is he bringing? Well there is kicking but he averages 6 points a game. For a winger/ kicker that is awful. I reckon pat richards scored more than that last year and he was injured for most of it. Plus his defense is rubbish.

The missed chances tha foster has thrown away are clear in my head and he doesn't look saints quality just yet.

Re: Jamie foster : Sun Feb 26, 2012 1:54 pm  

Mugwump wrote:

You're right. The only person who really knows is James Graham. But this does not mean we cannot make a rational assumption based on observable evidence (of which there is A LOT) and the testimony of the very people Graham bestowed his captaincy upon - players such as Gary Wheeler.

I'm not sure any assumption here is rational. What we see is a bloke who for whatever reason gets angry on a rugby pitch. Regardless of what anybody claims Wheeler said or didn't say, we don't know the context of the basis for Wheeler's claims. He and/or his team mates could have deserved a rollocking for all we know. Nor do we know what James Graham is like away from the rugby pitch and in the company of his colleagues when in a rugby league context or indeed any other context. This is simply speculation.

We have evidence of a ranter on the pitch. We also have evidence of a supreme athelete who sets himself high standards and rants at himself when he messes up. We also have evidence of a tender hearted bloke who comforted a distraught younger colleague who was also happy to be so comforted by him. We also have a hearsay report of a conversation that apparently took place between the reporter and Wheeler. That is all we have.

Re: Jamie foster : Sun Feb 26, 2012 1:55 pm  

jdrocket wrote:

So if. Saints win something this year with, in my opinion one of the weakest looking teams in a while, was james graham overrated?

No. The team will have taken on board his absence, as they clearly need to do.

Re: Jamie foster : Sun Feb 26, 2012 2:20 pm  

The beauty of debate is that we can all argue will dropping help, will continuing to play him help. My initial choice is always to keep playing them to see if they can shake it off. But Foster has continued to play as ade was injured in the last few months. It's not stopped this slide, specifically around feilding kicks and defensive duties.

I think there are a few discussions on these boards and we should not confuse 1 with the other.

There is the discussion about why we lost. I'll say here, Wellens, Lance, Foster are not the reason we lost. The collective team unit defence is the reason we lost.

Outside of that debate, is the debate over who should be playing, we did not have this last year as we played who was not injured.

Ade, Foster, Makinson (well my choice has been consistently Makinson and Foster for 6-8 months, but now I think it's time to try something different to bring Fosters defence back to where it was 12 - 18 months ago, I don't think he is a poor player, but he is playing below his own personal best and at his age he should be improving, not flatlining or going backwards in ability, hence why I put it down to confidence)

Lance ( where to play him, for me the attack is not the issue, the current half back pair have us totting up points for fun, experience; last night shows we need this on the field; I've only seen him for a full game at salford so was not impressed, also Wellens had not had a run out; but given the options this seams to be the best choice for FB to me)

Wellens ( did not want to dismiss from the old he's slow arguement, this was being said before he picked up a ball this season, everyone deserves a shot; I still think it's daft to suggest retirement, however given Lance would be a better FB, we then have to say well can Wellens be anywhere else? He is a Saints lad through and through and would probably do anything for the team, he is also a proud pro and wants to play, dismissing him as a back on the bench in favour of say ashe, who would sit there for 75 mins seams just as daft. He can come on and do stints giving other players breaks, whether that be at loose, acting half back, cover for centre spots if injured, moving to FB if FB or half back is injured. Saying he is limited to FB or nothing is a discredit to the man, he can play elsewhere and has done and would do again if asked to)

Re: Jamie foster : Sun Feb 26, 2012 2:56 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

I'm not sure any assumption here is rational. What we see is a bloke who for whatever reason gets angry on a rugby pitch.

The reasons are not relevant. The substantial evidence of Graham bawling players out is an indisputable fact.

Regardless of what anybody claims Wheeler said or didn't say, we don't know the context of the basis for Wheeler's claims.

Wheeler DID say it. This is an indisputable fact.

He and/or his team mates could have deserved a rollocking for all we know.

In whose opinion? Graham's? Based on what evidence? His own eyes? Senses are notoriously unreliable. But let's say the player in question did make a mistake this DOES NOT mean it is a good idea to bawl him out. You don't need a Ph.D in human psychology to know it is a risky leadership device which can often be counter-productive. Do YOU respond well to your manager when he's two inches from your face screaming over a cock-up you've made which you already feel bad about?

Nor do we know what James Graham is like away from the rugby pitch and in the company of his colleagues when in a rugby league context or indeed any other context. This is simply speculation.

What on earth are you talking about? James Graham extra-RL activities are completely irrelevant. Wheeler didn't say Graham is a bad bloke who plucks the eyeballs out of kittens. Quite the opposite, in fact. His comments were aimed solely at his style of captaincy and the criticisms he has of it. Nothing more.

We have evidence of a ranter on the pitch. We also have evidence of a supreme athelete who sets himself high standards and rants at himself when he messes up. We also have evidence of a tender hearted bloke who comforted a distraught younger colleague who was also happy to be so comforted by him.

Why do you keep trying to obfuscate the issue with lame appeals to emotion? NO ONE questions James Graham's standards. NO ONE questions his "tender heart" (is that a violin I'm hearing right now?). NO ONE questions his comforting of younger players. We ALL think James Graham is an outstanding player. But this DOES NOT mean criticisms cannot be levelled at his style of captaincy.

Re: Jamie foster : Tue Feb 28, 2012 12:26 am  

Jamie foster has not tweeted in 3 days, something is seriously wrong, i assume this time when he said "Head down and time to graft." he actually meant it, literally can't find the last time he hasn't been on for this period of time, must of really got to him, that or he saw the amount of abuse off people comparing him to Kevin Penny.

Re: Jamie foster : Tue Feb 28, 2012 1:05 am  

Kevin Penny,
thats possibly a little harsh.

Be interseting to see how he performs in the next few weeks

Re: Jamie foster : Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:25 am  

I can't believe how quickly people are to jump up and down about how bad Foster seemingly is all of a sudden. Seems to me 90% of the comments about him are about the way he looks or 'seems' as a person with virtually no evidence except for his twittering ('young man in use of twitter shock').

I've questioned whether wing is Foster's best position, but I think if he fills out a bit he may well make a good centre. From what I've seen he looks to have a good rugby brain - and when he's confident he's a damn good kicker.

Ideally Foster will go on to be a great player for Sts. I really hope that. On top of that, I have no problem with him being the face of the game with kids who otherwise may not take any interest in RL. As with Beckham does it really matter if he's not the best player in the world if kids think he is?

Re: Jamie foster : Tue Feb 28, 2012 10:17 am  

saintcj wrote:

Kevin Penny,
thats possibly a little harsh.

Be interseting to see how he performs in the next few weeks

I'm not trolling!

Penny has(d) an infinately better attack than foster does now and similiar defensive abilities (at least he coulc catch a sitter)

But it isn't the end for foster. His kicking ability will mean he won't be forced out

But it seems a fair comparison, even the response from the fans.

Re: Jamie foster : Tue Feb 28, 2012 1:04 pm  

Jamie did not have his best game for Saints but there is no reason to blame him to such an extent. LMS for example could and should have given away several penalties for high shots in the second half. Child completely missed them as he did with a lot of things.

I have always put dropping off late in a game down to poor conditioning but your conditioning can be tested if you lack physicality. So are we poorly conditioned and that is making us look weak or are we not physical enough and that is tiring us? Either way it is an issue with the team in general rather than one player.

Looking at our front row would be a better place to start. Against Catalan we lost Clough after Lomax game him a hospital pass and hurt his bad neck and shoulder. Clough does turn his back a lot going into the tackle which is a very poor technique and will only get him injured. Puletua disappeared to the bench in the second half so he better have been injured. He is a player that does not play to his limits. Laffranchi is playing OK but looks more like a loose forward than a prop. Which left Louie out on his feet making poor tackles around the head.

All that being said and done I do think that Makinson and Gardner are our best wingers at present but I have had that opinion since before the season started. Jamie just needs to work on the holes in his game.