The replacement or lack of it with Talau, is not down to being unfortunate.

Whilst it's fair to say we would have been annoyed if Eastmond signed a long term deal with Warrington, he did not sign a long term deal with Saints. It was not so much about keeping Smith or Long, but not telling them to go before signing up Eastmond on a long 4 year deal. If he stuck to 2 years then you need to hedge and keep Smith, Pryce and Eastmond. All 3 could have been accomodated.

Same with Leon he could have been kept. Going for Lance made no sense as a half without any hindsight. Had he been signed as a FB, for an outgoing Wellens then fair enough.

Laffranchi again a good signing but why would we sign him to replace the best prop in the world (arguably). There was the likes of Griffin and Hill I think even Carvell may have been up for grabs at the time. So whilst we could not sign a prop of Grahams ability, we could have bought him in the aggregate.

Perry there is no fault with a quality buy, for the right position but just did not work out, same with Shenton.

If you have ever watched Moneyball, then you could say Saints are guilty of doing a similar thing, we have been looking to sign names, as opposed to buying wins, by going for effective players in the right positions, rather than big names who play in slots that are already covered.

For me, it all started when Scully retired. Near impossible to replace though. IIRC we have not won anything since have we?

I want us to go back to basics and recruit players specifically for certain positions. By that I mean I want two actual wingers playing on the wing.

I want two actual centres playing there. I want 2 out and out halfbacks playing there. I want 3 or 4 no nonsense props playing there. It's hardly rocket science. Even if they aren't world beaters; even if they are merely "solid" in that position, it will be a position where they have trained all their career.

I am fed up of seeing us trying to put a round peg into a dodecahedron hole. Enough trying to do this on the cheap all the whilst ruining kids careers.

I just want to see an honest to god RL team.

fwiw RE: Griffin there was an interview with him a while back (can't remember where) when he said he shook hands on a deal with you guys, then decided to join Leeds at the last minute instead.

From seeing what he did at Hudds I suspect that isnt browns style though. I agree with you though, it's what the goons have done and it's working ok for them at the moment.

Went chasing the money and got shafted. No sympathy for players with that attitude.

Don't really see Saints troubling the silverware for quite a while to be honest.

What has that got to do with ANYTHING here?

Please, if you are going to troll then at least be amusing.

Saying we should of kept Leon is all well and good,but given his injury record of his last two years it was something of a gamble for us to keep a high earner who may or may not play.Again its something we are judging with hindsight,if we had of kept him and he got injured then people would of been lambasting the board for resigning him.Also while he is a good player is isnt a creative organising player and as was often posted on here and other sites,he would often be invisible in games.

Gidleyreplaced with the current first choice GB #3
Scullyreplaced by a GB SR/#13
Grahamreplaced with an Aussie international prop.
Longreplaced with the best and most exciting young #7 talent in the country.

etc., etc., et-****ing-cetra...

Having coaches who only took the position because nothing else was available in their own country doesn't help.

Guy by the name of Wilkin? You know

Talau was past it and we had a quality proven centre replacement in the squad already in Gilmour - I don't know whether you've noticed but top centres don't exactly grow on trees 'round these parts these days. Most top SL teams have had to rely on SRs to fill in at #3 or #4 over the last 5 years or so and we were in a darn sight better position than they've been by having Gilmour to call on. Have Leeds and Wigan shown a lack of "ambition" and a desire to simply cut costs at all costs by having relied on SRs playing centre in their GF wins do you think?

And again - who do you think we should have signed at the time instead to play #4 who was available and better than Gilmour? Hmmmm?



The argument isn'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.