Re: Some home truths....this may hurt : Sun Oct 09, 2016 12:00 pm
morrisseyisawire wrote:
It is harsh on Russell, I admit, and I do admire his qualities. The problem is, he is clearly an out-and-out FB. If we play him on the wing we are shoehorning him into the team, and that is where a lot of our problems lie. If we keep Russell, and I'm sure we will, then he needs to play FB, and I'm not sure he is good enough for that. That means moving Ratchford around, which in turn means moving Gidley.
As for Sandow and Gidley, they were the competition's best half-back combination in the first part of the season by a mile. Sandow's injury disrupted them both and Gidley himself was never really 100% fit for the last few months but they'd still be my first choice next year.
Our priorities lie elsewhere. A flyer on the wing, a centre and another prop. Yes, we've come up short (just) in the big games again so some need to be moved on but we have the core.
As for Sandow and Gidley, they were the competition's best half-back combination in the first part of the season by a mile. Sandow's injury disrupted them both and Gidley himself was never really 100% fit for the last few months but they'd still be my first choice next year.
Our priorities lie elsewhere. A flyer on the wing, a centre and another prop. Yes, we've come up short (just) in the big games again so some need to be moved on but we have the core.
Ten years ago maybe he could have been an out and out fullback. However, nowadays you can't really be a top fullback if you can't pass - it's too easy for the defence to shoot in on you out the back of a second man play. As a Saints fan I'd much rather Russell played fullback than Ratchford (and I think Ratchford has got some fairly large deficiencies), because Russell may have more attacking involvement playing fullback but the rest of your backline will have less.