Quote: Northampton_Saint "Guy by the name of Wilkin? You knowisn't did we sign the [iright[/i players to replace those that left every time, or that contracts have been handled as well as they could have been... Eastmond was a **** up and noone would deny otherwise. Hohaia is a disaster in the position we signed him for. LeFrank is not the dominating presence up front Jammer was. The argument that some numpties are making though is that the board has shown a complete lack of "ambition", only been interested in saving money and has not even tried to attempt to replace any players that have left - this is a patent and utter demonstrable nonsense. At every stage we have signed (in the board's opinion) the best possible available replacement for everyone that has left and on top dollar. Eastmond, LeFrank and Hohaia were all signed on top dollar, just as much as the players they were replacing were on. We have not signed cheap makeweights and relied on unprepared youth teamers to fill all the holes as the lunatic fringe are suggesting.'"
I disagree. Talau could and should have been replaced. Moving Gilly out to centre made the pack lighter and reduced our threat out wide and contributed to the slow down in the backs.
There were plenty of centres who we could have opted for from the UK or the NRL. Back when Talau left there was not the same gulf in wages that there is now. In fact we may have been ahead at that point. Who could we have signed, well that so far back now, I'd be hard pushed to find who was exactly off contract at that point.
But I like a challenge so how about this one Matt King.