Sorry guys, but Shenton is no replacement for Gidley.

Granted, he is quick, but is nowhere near the class we should be looking at to replace someone who is arguably one of the most respected and skillful centres in the game.

Centre has (and probably always will be) a marquee position for Saints - do you really think Shenton is in that bracket? He was made to look average at best against Oz and NZ.

'tis true, but he is probably the best availiable, and it allows us to sign a monster prop or two, i'd be happy

or, we could sign another marquee aussie centre, who will see no ball and in the meantime, leave Graham to struggle on AGAIN for another season with no help.

Shenton is much better than Gidleys current level of ability. if we can get him on a cheaper wage, bonus!. However, hes nailed on for Wigan anyway.

I think with the likes of Warrington and Wigan in the running for all these potential signings, we're unlikely to make any of them stick.

I don't think we'll miss Gidley. For whatever reason he's been very quiet for 18 months now.

Shenton is okay by me. He's young. He's quick. He weighs in with the odd try and he can defend. What's not to like?

The centre position was doubtlessly a "marquee position" ten years ago. But is it today? I don't think so.

I mean, there's nothing bad about having a marquee NAME at centre. We profited immensely out of Lyon. But I think the slot itself lost its glamour when the salary cap was introduced. Look, if it's a choice between buying a top prop or buying a top centre I'll take the former every time. Not least because without your props that marquee name (costing an arm and a leg) is going to find it very difficult to operate effectively. But even a modestly gifted grafter can look good playing behind a dominant pack (Scott Naylor is an excellent example).

If I were offered the opportunity to run an emerging SL franchise I'd be spending the money in the following order (most to least) - prop, playmaking SO or SH, back row, full back, hooker, loose forward, centre, wing.

Barring bad luck with injuries a dominant pack will ALWAYS keep you in contention. There are no guarantees with silverware, but you won't fail to be in the hunt. On the flipside, a team that invests most of its money in the backs whilst maintaining an average or below average front six will find it very difficult to be successful.

In the same vein, a great pack with average outside backs will win you nothing.

There is no reason why we can't have both. I've seen how much impact quality props like Ward, Fairleigh, Britt and Jammer can have on your team but that has also been combined with a Newlove, Gibbs, Lyon and Gidley.

Take South Sydney this year - one of the best packs in the comp in the NRL but the backs are inferior to other teams. They will end up winning nothing.

A bit like Bradford in the early 00's? They would often steam roller teams and average players like Naylor and McAvoy would look good, but on the occasions teams stood up to them, they had very few ideas or options.

Alternatively, I cant recall which year it was, but Leeds had a fantastic set of backs and halfbacks, but didnt get anywhere because they had no props. Well, they had props, but you know what I mean.

It'll win you the last World Cup and the 2005 Tri-Nations, zilling the Australians in the process.

Are you seriously saying the kiwi back line is average?

says in paper today we are big admirers of salford prop ray cashmere not a bad player

He's too soft

There's one huge reason we can't have both. The "full stop" kind of reason - The Salary Cap. In a league such as SL where talent is at a premium rather ten-a-penny, unless you strike lucky and sign a team of Jamie Lyonesque players with mesmerising skills and absolute application who play purely for the game rather than they money it's impossible to hire a great pack and a great back line AND stay under the salary cap.



Different competition. Different dynamics. The Australians have a huge talent pool to pick from, which means it's impossible for a select group of players to hold the clubs to ransom (as has often been the case in Britain). An NRL club can afford to hire 13 good players because there are so MANY good players undercutting each other in order to find work. If your prize winger bangs on the chairman's table and demands a 40% raise you can afford to phuck him off because you know there are three or four other as talented or potentially as talented players always available. Salaries go down (relatively rather than absolutely) and it becomes easier to finance a good team without falling foul of the salary cap.

And we seem to think he is nailed on for you??

Well someone on here knows his GF very well and shes told them hes going to sign for wigan.