Re: Scott Moore. : Mon Oct 17, 2016 6:52 am  

MashPotatoes wrote:

The saddest thing about this episode for us............. he'll end up at Leigh on a better contract. It's a win, win for Scotty boy.

We've already got 3 good 9's for next season. You can keep him

Re: Scott Moore. : Mon Oct 17, 2016 7:18 am  

Iggy79 wrote:

You can keep him

I imagine we won't be.

Re: Scott Moore. : Mon Oct 17, 2016 7:19 am  

Eastern Wildcat wrote:

Yes we need to move on from these kind of players and very quickly.

Hasnt a certain other player with a chequered history been mentioned on this board in the past few days

That would be an utter travesty for our game, to take such a rarity as a young British H/B and turn him into a 9 would be pathetic even for the most dullard British coach or second rate Aussies of whick our game is festooned. All because they couldn't be bothered to develop him and just wanted a quick fix and I include the sainted Powell in that. If we did get Hampshire it would be move over Miller for me because Miller is not in the same class in terms of a complete game.

I rate Moore and at this late date we won't replace him with anyone as good IMHO. However in the British game Hookers are one of our better products and I'm sure we could find more than adequate in the Championship or the 'A' teams of other clubs. Or even more radical we could put our faith in young Mouls partnered with Finn, wow.

However back to the point, Hampshire to 9 would be a disgrace same as putting him at FB was.

Re: Scott Moore. : Mon Oct 17, 2016 7:33 am  

So I take it that was a no then. I wasn't thinking of is as being permanent. Both Miller and Williams are off contract at the end of the year. Plus come the end of next season, a more natural quality 9 could be available.

There has been a lot of players, who in their younger stages of their careers play out of position. Didnt Dave Topliss and Roger Millward play some of their games early in their careers on the wing? In the long run, it wasn't a travesty to our game.

I have no issues with Moules playing 9 for us, but not sure if his body would be up to it week in week out yest. Just look how Jowitt was by then end of the season.

I do feel that Finn's distribution would be too slow.

Re: Scott Moore. : Mon Oct 17, 2016 7:34 am  

vastman wrote:

That would be an utter travesty for our game, to take such a rarity as a young British H/B and turn him into a 9 would be pathetic even for the most dullard British coach or second rate Aussies of whick our game is festooned. All because they couldn't be bothered to develop him and just wanted a quick fix and I include the sainted Powell in that. If we did get Hampshire it would be move over Miller for me because Miller is not in the same class in terms of a complete game.

I rate Moore and at this late date we won't replace him with anyone as good IMHO. However in the British game Hookers are one of our better products and I'm sure we could find more than adequate in the Championship or the 'A' teams of other clubs. Or even more radical we could put our faith in young Mouls partnered with Finn, wow.

However back to the point, Hampshire to 9 would be a disgrace same as putting him at FB was.

Totally agree with all that. We are a club that Hampshire would love to play at and we are also the club that would give him a chance and develop his talent to be a true No6. It would be an ideal match for both parties.

However I heard we made him a derisory offer and were not that interested in taking him on board.
Could internal politics be involved ? i'm sure you know enough to work that one out.

Re: Scott Moore. : Mon Oct 17, 2016 7:41 am  

Prince Buster wrote:

Totally agree with all that. We are a club that Hampshire would love to play at and we are also the club that would give him a chance and develop his talent to be a true No6. It would be an ideal match for both parties.

However I heard we made him a derisory offer and were not that interested in taking him on board.
Could internal politics be involved ? i'm sure you know enough to work that one out.

The fact our new director of rugby and Ryan's dad don't get on?

Re: Scott Moore. : Mon Oct 17, 2016 7:59 am  

Should it not be down to the individual.

Without trying to stir it here, with a situation like this, this is where the lads career could be hampered, surely.

He isn't getting game time in any of the pivotal positions at either is parent club, or the club he is being loaned out to?

If he was with us, would definately be knocking on the door.

Re: Scott Moore. : Mon Oct 17, 2016 7:59 am  

Tricky2309 wrote:

The fact our new director of rugby and Ryan's dad don't get on?

Surely not!

I'm just glad it's happened now with Moore. Just think if it had been February. If someone like him has a tendency to get into scrapes, he will get into other scrapes. The fact that it's happened now suggests we've got lucky.

It's a fine line with some rugby players. That bit of mongrel is what makes them good players, but sometimes it just gets out of the cage. If he didn't have that thing in him that makes him get into scrapes, he wouldn't have been the player he's been.

Re: Scott Moore. : Mon Oct 17, 2016 9:08 am  

Cas gave Hampshire many, many opportunities at 6 this year, and it was very clear that he is not a half back. We were without a stand off for 3/4 of the season due to Roberts' injury and in the end (even after a few stints) the coach still chose to play Millington at halfback ahead of him! If Powell, Orr and Sheridan don't see any potential in him, who will?

As soon as we put him on the wing, he was a completely different player. Think he just needs to admit defeat on that one...

Re: Scott Moore. : Mon Oct 17, 2016 9:30 am  

Slugger McBatt wrote:

Surely not!

I'm just glad it's happened now with Moore. Just think if it had been February. If someone like him has a tendency to get into scrapes, he will get into other scrapes. The fact that it's happened now suggests we've got lucky.

It's a fine line with some rugby players. That bit of mongrel is what makes them good players, but sometimes it just gets out of the cage. If he didn't have that thing in him that makes him get into scrapes, he wouldn't have been the player he's been.

I'm not a fan of apologist attitudes towards this type of behaviour - in the modern, full time world of professional rugby league, there is no excuse for a player, regardless of how much mongrel he has in him, to be unable to leave that on the pitch or training field; and for every one who's transgressed, there are dozens who haven't, so it's hardly an occupational hazard.

The more worrying thing, is the frequency this has happened at our club in the recent past - last year's drunk driving episode, then the car incident and now this; it seems to suggest that there's an issue with culture or leadership at the club that means the checks and balances on behaviour and conduct are not sufficiently powerful to act as a disincentive?