Now it's imperative that you keep Puletua. His loss coupled with Graham's would be huge. You just to have to look back to the Wigan game and see what the effect was when they were both off the field. But again like Graham it's a tricky one, because it's not just a simple case of them staying for a bucket load of cash. Graham wanted to try his hand in the NRL, nothing you could do about that. And Puletua want's to back to AUZ for family reasons, again completely out of Saints control.

No, it's a fact because I spoke to TP last week.

No. We've lucked out with Lomax and let's not forget it. If at the start of the season Simmons had said he was promoting Lomax ahead of Eastmond the fans would have been in uproar. And with good reason as there was every chance Kyle would have returned to the kind of form which played havoc with some of the best defences in the business not so long ago.



Don't be naive. Top players pay very close attention to the ins and outs at their club. One only need look to football to see evidence of this week-in, week-out (Rooney, Gerrard and Torres being three examples to pick from a pile). Top players want to win. Obstacles to winning make them feel uneasy. And losing the club's best (and irreplaceable player) is one big obstacle.



There is no replacement for Graham. None. Yes, we may acquire the services of someone who performs well in the NRL. But he won't be someone who is a) world class, b) capable of playing seventy minutes on a week-to-week basis, c) in the prime of his career and d) a leader. There's a good reason for this because the Ozzies know the value of top props better than anyone and they will move heaven and earth to retain their services.



Perry has yet to prove himself. He was a top player. It remains to be seen whether he is still such or someone who has given his best years to the NRL (or a walking crock). Clough is a very solid performer - but he is not a lead prop. LMS is still adjusting to the team so I will give him some slack. However, it is true to say that when called upon to support TP and Graham he was found wanting. Wigan's pack - ineffective when the two lead props were on the field - went into overdrive precisely when LMS needed to shore up the middle.

Whilst I mostly agree with this paragraph, if you'd replaced McGennis with Clough or (especially) Perry, I reckon there would've been much less of a problem.

Whilst I agree it will be difficult/nigh on impossible to replace Graham because of a) his playing ability and b)his drive and commitment to the cause, I do wonder what Paul clough could bring to the table next year. Last season, his yards stats were very impressive. He gives us a high work rate and an ability to gain yards in contact with a second drive. There's rumours he's a skilled passer of the ball from his days at 13. He'll never be a prop to bash people down to break through, but then, Graham doesn't tend to do that much either.
Assuming his injury clears up, he'll be another year older and stronger (and wider). It will be interesting to see how he develops as a player.

If we were all fit, I would assume Royce would take clough and LMS on the bench as props, starting Tony at 13 and always having 3 guys on the pitch to play hard up the middle. We'll see how cloughy gets on as the season progresses (assuming we get him back).

We haven't lucked out with Lomax any more than we lucked out with Eastmond.

Unless by lucked out you mean put a monumental amount of work into developing good young players, in which case I agree.

We've put a lot of effort into player development. But what is the point of comparison? The rest of SL? That's hardly a yardstick of greatness and being the top of the pile (are we?) shouldn't necessarily induce a crescendo of applause. I mean, can we REALLY say our system is so good after we have produced one first rate prop in nearly twenty five years? What about full-back? Our last realistic FB was Prescott (who, whilst gifted in many ways, was hopelessly ineffectual in defence because of his diminutive size).

Popular or common opinion is not truth. Yes, we have produced some good players at Saints over the last ten years. But nowhere near enough for us to congratulate ourselves in the manner some do. I mean, if you think twenty five years between GB props is an indicator of greatness fine. But don't expect me to agree (if we are REALLY serious about judging our development programme let's measure it against the best i.e. those existing in the NRL).

Had we a record of seamless replacement (Eastmond to Lomax) in ALL positions we could break out the champagne. But we don't. Which means we lucked out with Lomax.

Wellens surely?



Saints youth develoment has improved immensely in the last 10 years, and the fruits of that labour is only just starting to seep into the first team with the likes of Eastmond, Wheeler, Lomax, Ashurst, Dixon, McGennis, Foster, Gaskell, Clough, Moore, Armstrong, Makinson etc. We've also produced SL quality players in the likes of Smith, Bannister and Ellis, some of whom were binned off for off the field activities rather than on the field ability.

No one with any sense thinks we are the best in the world at producing youth players, or has said so as far as I can see, but we are far better than we were (there's one point of comparison) and picking out one position to back up the argument when we've produced players in the last ten years who can play to a good standard in [ievery other [/iposition on the pitch is just you being pig headed.

Well said.

I'd say we're as good as any in this country at producing quantity along with quality youngsters. Roby and Graham the first batch and now we're seeing even more quality coming through and I'd expect even more in 3-5 years.

If we are going to make a comparison, surely it has to be with the other top youth systems in Super League. Call it Wigan and Leeds for the past ten years - how many first rate props have they produced?

To use the NRL as a yardstick for Super League youth systems is ridiculous considering the talent pool they have to choose from.

Ridiculous to do a comparison with the NRL.

In Aus, natural athletes play RL, in the UK, the natual athletes tend to play football.

I've seen first hand the work our development system delivers and it really is first class. It is certainly not for the want of time, money and effort on behalf of the clubs development coaches. At the end of the day, you have to make the best of what you have available and the club certainly does. There are some real quality kids in the current academy system including some front rowers of the future like Joe Bate and Brad Ashurst. If they continue to work hard, these guys will be first teamers of the future.

One for BackrowSaint here.....

On the Sydney Herald website


rlhttps://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/st-helens-set-to-raid-nrl-after-losing-graham-20110427-1dwz7.htmlrl

At the bottom of the Graham piece it says:

They have been unable to re-sign former Penrith second-rower Tony Puletua amid significant interest from elsewhere in the competition, although there have also been suggestions the Kiwi might be considering a return to the NRL. Tigers prop Bryce Gibbs has also been mentioned as a target for St Helens.

I couldn't really be fussed answering that negative diatribe from Mugwump, but thanks to those that did.

For a start off, James Graham is a freak. He is not only extremely durable, but he has a passing game that has brought the role of ball playing prop back into fashion and is so good that it is a skill we will be unlikely to see in many other props, regardless of how many we actually produce. In addition, James Graham has been a real motivator on the pitch, something that any player could be, not necessarily a prop. So James Graham I think is unique in the combination of qualities he has to offer and no-one has produced anyone like him in this country for the whole time he has been playing. It could be said that props like him are a rare commodity down under too or else why has he been actively sought by NRL teams?

Aside from that, how do you know we haven't been producing quality props? I don't know what Frodsham is like, other than perpetually injured, but he could be quality when fit. Or Forster, also presently injured. Joe Greenwood has been given a shirt having played prop in the u20s game recently, so he could be a second rower moving forward. And we don't know who else is coming through the system, year by year.

As suggested, we have radically improved our youth development system over the last ten years. But that is very recent if we are talking about seeing the results. We are just beginning to see those results. We seem particularly good at producing second rowers and halfbacks but as stated in one of Saints' match programmes this season, the Saints' system encourages young players to play in numerous positions. Unless we follow the youth teams actively, which I don't, most of us won't have a clue what kind of talent is coming through. We will see it only when there are enough injuries in the first team for one of them to have a debut.

I was pretty impressed with Makinson, even though he is a Wiganer, but although I had heard of him prior to his debut, I had no idea what he was like. I thought Armstrong did ok standing in at fullback, yet he has only played at centre in the first team previously. I think it is testament to our production line now that we are able to call on such a variety of young players, most of whom appear to slip seemlessly into the first team when called upon. No doubt we will witness many more examples of our home grown talent in the seasons ahead as the system of the last ten years continues to bear fruit.