: Thu Mar 12, 2009 8:29 pm  

Blobbynator wrote:

There are the odd freaks such as Burgess ... who are massive at the age of 17 and can physically cope...

Perhaps, but even he has already had corrective surgery because because of heavy wear and tear.

: Thu Mar 12, 2009 11:01 pm  

Stirlingshire Saint wrote:

Murphy played consistently from 17 in a far more dangerous age of RL did he not?

Cunningham from what I recall was basically a first teamer every week from his debut?

I just think we should be hiding players due to their age. The Aussies don't do it and we are continuously praising these phenomenal talents playing for Australia at such a young age. We don't seem to grasp if these kids were British they'd still be playing A team rugby to 'protect' them. Its complete nonsense.

Cunningham is just a freak.
Sculthorpe, Farrell, Radlinski, all bodies ruined by their late 20's, Sam burgess already has had shoulder reconstruction. Players who are brilliant from a young age generally have their careers ended early. This is due in no small part to playing internationals after a hard season and so not enough down time.
Introduce the younger lads gradually.
In our case Kyle Eastmond already seems injury prone.

: Thu Mar 12, 2009 11:14 pm  

TheJudge wrote:

I also have it on good authority that nobody from te club has heard from him recently. What is going on? time for Saints to come clean

This board are past masters on saying and doing the right thing with regards to employment.

I can imagine a scenario like this.

Given a warning perhaps for the visa situation.

Reading between the lines of the last press release final warnings and termination by not honouring terms on the contract ( training, contact and attendance)

I expect a millward type statement from the board when this happens.

The haters will have more ammo and the apologists will find it hard to back him with a local lad in reserve if his performance isn't up to scratch.

I`d be amazed if he comes back to saints.

: Thu Mar 12, 2009 11:48 pm  

He isn't coming back because of the ridiculous scapegoating you brain dead idiots gave him.

He spends every day in fear for his life, always in disguise, and IT'S ALL YOUR FAULT!!!

: Fri Mar 13, 2009 12:03 am  

Saint Simon wrote:

Cunningham is just a freak.
Sculthorpe, Farrell, Radlinski, all bodies ruined by their late 20's, Sam burgess already has had shoulder reconstruction. Players who are brilliant from a young age generally have their careers ended early. This is due in no small part to playing internationals after a hard season and so not enough down time.
Introduce the younger lads gradually.
In our case Kyle Eastmond already seems injury prone.

Farrell didn't play his first game of Rugby Union until he was 31.

Well not quite true, he did play for Wigan v Bath at Twickenham a few years earlier.

: Fri Mar 13, 2009 10:43 am  

Carlos Alberto wrote:

Look what's happened to Fielden.

so Graham is going the same way is he??

: Fri Mar 13, 2009 10:47 am  

nikos wrote:

so Graham is going the same way is he??

hopefully not

: Fri Mar 13, 2009 11:47 am  

Saint Simon wrote:

Cunningham is just a freak.
Sculthorpe, Farrell, Radlinski, all bodies ruined by their late 20's, Sam burgess already has had shoulder reconstruction. Players who are brilliant from a young age generally have their careers ended early. This is due in no small part to playing internationals after a hard season and so not enough down time.
Introduce the younger lads gradually.
In our case Kyle Eastmond already seems injury prone.

Most of the aussie players in their 30s started out in there teens. It has nothing to do with what age you start at, and more so how you look after yourself during your professional years and if you are lucky enough to avoid serious injury.

: Fri Mar 13, 2009 11:48 am  

Meli can be fantastic on his day,
other days just looks like he cant be arsed, which everyone agrees does seem to be down to an attitude problem.

I say get rid. Get these youngsters up to scratch.
I agree with that phrase if they are good enough, they are old enough.

I have total faith in any decisions made by Saints

: Fri Mar 13, 2009 12:03 pm  

Some utter tripe on this thread.

Folk refering to the good/great players of the last few years who played from an early age as just 'freaks' and such. Maybe these lads were just the most talented bunch of their generation, regardless of when they were sustained first teamers?

They played because they were good enough, which is the exact point being made. If they are good enough, regardless of age, they should play. If not, then they don't. Injuries are common in a game such as rugby, again regardless of age.