True it perhaps a little unfair to compare Dixon and Ashurst with Tomkins and Mossop, due there age and relative experience. Someone who is very comparable with Dixon and Ashurst is Liam Farrel.

Not only is Farrel younger than both Ashurst and Dixon but he's also made far less first team appearances for Wigan than those two have made for Saints. Granted not many fans other than Wigan one's will have seen him play, but he is already looking a very accomplished backrower both in defense and attack. Dixon and Ashurst on the other hand are both very workman like offering a reasonable amount in defense but not so much in attack.'"

What the frigg does Andrew Dixon have to do with WWE?

I assume they are insinuating that he looks like him?

I watched the Leeds game back last night and Dixon didn't just cope, I thought he defended manufully and threatened in attack. He's got good feet for a 2nd row, as well.

The thing with Ashurst and Dixon is, I don't think they look that big. I don't know if they have deceptive builds, whether our kit makes our players look slim or whether they do actually lack in size.

A quick review on the saints site shows

Ashurst 186cm 90kg
Dixon 183cm 94kg
[iand to compare[/i
Jon Wilkin 185cm 95kg
Chris Flannery 186cm 100kg
Tony Puletua 192cm 110kg

So, if Mugwump is right and the young lads will be able to put on another stone and a half (which is pretty much 10kg), then they'll at least have the physical size of Flannery.

The information on the website is incorrect, it hasn't been updated for years, you will probably find that the kids information hasn't been updated since they were 16

I said they'll put on anywhere UP TO a stone-and-a-half. Some kids might only push the stone limit. Others higher. Depends on the build, genetics, diet, training regime and a whole host of other factors.

The only certainty is they (as well as Eastmond, Wheeler, Lomax etc.) WILL be considerably bigger in two years.