No one disputes the wisdom of giving Foster time to work on his game in the reserves. He'd clearly lost form and allowing him to continue and have his confidence irrevocably destroyed was senseless.

But for a player to lose form he must have [ipossessed it in the first place[/i. And Foster had put in a very useful stint for the club demonstrating not only the fact that he can kick. Yes, he is not the quickest player in the world and he has yet to physically mature. But this didn't prevent him from showing that he is a very useful finisher with good hands and excellent awareness close to the corner flag. His try-scoring record clearly does not suggest first team football is beyond him.

Since Foster's demotion other youngsters have staked their claims and done well. But since none of them have played an unbroken stretch it is false to suggest there haven't been opportunities to bring him back. Besides, sticking exclusively with Swift or Jones or whomever else runs the risk of creating precisely the same problem we made with Foster - putting too much responsibility on their shoulders too early.

If the club wants rid of Foster - fine. Make an announcement and draw a line under his career here and now. But if he's still part of our plans he won't get any better playing for months in the reserves. Ditto Gaskell, whose game must surely be going to pot spending so long away from the unique challenges posed by SL defences.

Jon Wilkin hasn't delivered anything like consistently for two full years. It's a scandal he's anywhere close to the representative football right now.

And my post argued that point. He is doing what Wilkin has already succeeded in doing and planning for his future. Therefore, he does NOT need to decide.


No, but that whole story came out as a result of him playing first team games. Now that he isn't in the first team, it is no longer a story.


And how long do you think Wilkin has had his shop? He is also the Saints player who has actively begun projects to help players focus upon their post-rugby futures. He began with a project offering Saints players work experience opportunities. Wello worked in the media section of St Helens Council for a while. Also, what do you think goes on at Cowley School? Have you not heard/seen any of the interviews about it? The u20s lads (and younger) are encouraged to study alongside their rugby playing. What about Swift? He's a part-time player because he also has an apprenticeship, I think with Pilks. There is presently a big push on getting players prepared for their post-rugby playing days and part of that is obtaining qualifications or apprenticeships or, in the case of Foster, starting a barbers business with a Saints theme. He is young and if he doesn't make it in the game or if he does so in preparation for when that career ends, he needs a fallback. Well done him I say on getting himself into position to have one. His team mates would be well advised to follow his example and I'm sure many of them are it is just that you haven't heard their stories because many of them will not be playing in the first team.

You just want to have a go at him for no good reason, as do many on here, and frankly it's pathetic.

Jon Wilkin was in great form last year. This year, granted. He probably had his first good game last night.

He played well in several games last season - but this is not the same as saying he was consistently good throughout. There were many times I completely forgot he was on the field.

Players have been setting up businesses for years. It's only with the age of social networking that many have picked up on it.

Good on Foster (and others) for setting up the futures instead of p**sing it up against the wall. Physical sporting careers are very short and we shouldn't begrudge anyone for setting up a career beyond that.

He's an excellent kicker and very good finisher. I'm happy to have him in the squad because we'll inevitably get injuries/loss of form.

Just because a player is struggling to get into the 17 we don't have to talk about letting them go. What happened to having a strong squad?

Maybe Mike Rush favours other players before Foster? Maybe this will be different under Nathan Brown? I don't think there's anything sinister behind it and I think they've both (Gaskell and Foster) probably been told to work hard on their game in training and in the reserves. Gaskell has been unlucky not to feature more recently with the form of Hohaia but with Meli, Makinson, Gardner and Swift all going pretty well when they've been in the side, it's understandable Foster hasn't found his way back in yet.

Maybe a loan spell for both would do them good, particularly for Foster who's opportunites look limited right now. Gaskell probably isn't far off. An injury to Hohaia or Lomax and he'd be next in line.

Agreed. Can't see why it has to turn into a big conspiracy whenever a player can't get a game. Sometimes you have to hang on and wait for an opportunity through injury. Seeing as we have only lost to the pies since Simmons left there isn't a great case for overhauling the first seventeen on a frequent basis. It's not like if Foster had played at Manchester that we'd suddenly have won.

Foster obviously cares about playing for Saints because even when he made the mistakes he was out there next tackle trying to make it right, perhaps with too much enthusiasm. That to me suggests he can bounce back if he continues to work on his game. Just because he isn't playing now doesn't mean he won't play again so I don't see what purpose it serves putting ultimatums on the chairman or coaching staff to either play him or let him go.

If Nathan Brown likes him, mark my words he will be putting some timber on, by hook or by crook.

The only chance Foster has of playing regular at the Saints is if they change to American football. He can then come on as a specialist kicker.(not punting as he is a one trick pony).

The simple truth is he is not and never will be good enough for super league.

Where have I had a go at him - during no post have I suggested that he shouldn't play first team, during no post have I said anything negative.

All I have said is that he needs to decide what he wants to do. The lad has a talent, he obviously is not showing enough to warrant a go in the first team at the moment. Please explain to me what I have said is pathetic?

I do find it amusing that we can tip so far to the ends of the scales either in favour or against Foster.

I can see why he is not being picked as the current incumbants are holding down their own shirts, I am well aware of the history with Meli and I am well aware of the clangers he can make at key moments. But I am also well aware that week in week out he has the attributes that can cause problems for defenses and that is not something Jamie brings to the party.

Jones and swift are good examples as they show that the coaches are willing to try people. I still think Foster will play for the Saints first team again, but whether he willl get another contract, well that's just down to sporting competition.

Foster offers so little it's scary.

People can slag Meli off all they want, a lot of it is accurate and justified, but he's only as disaster-prone as Foster, while actually offering something with the ball (which Foster doesn't. Ever.)

I'm glad he's looking after his future away from Rugby League because I think that's most probably where it lies.

And that's a post based purely on his rugby abilities because I don't buy into the 'arrogant idiot' claims (nor do I think they're relevant.)

Jamie foster has options to sign for other clubs but really wants to stay. He's been advised by his agent to sit tight for next year and see where he stands with Nathan Brown.

IMO its going to be touch to turn down what's on the table but he does want to stay at saint.