No, I'm just curious after reading something on RedVee about the 19 not being the actual 19 and that things are worse than they appear from the stated 19. I've been hopping on and off the Saints site this weekend to see which u20s players are going to be joining us tomorrow.

It may be a case of desperation by Saints that they are having to recruit to these positions and the lads they are picking are the best fit for tomorrow. I doubt it has anything to do with the editing. We let go of a lot of players last season and that was an error by the club. If we have to field a team tomorrow and we have too few or no props available, for example, then it appears that Joe Greenwood is going to have to play prop.

alot of young second rowers progress to prop when they fill out, see Paul Clough for a perfect example of this

By far your most impressive player in the U20's game at Orrell yesterday. I would hope he doesn't play on Monday, the kid was out on his feet at the end of the game.

Not sure on that myself actually. Whilst we did have depth in the pack, with the likes of Fozzard and Anderson being left out of squads, our backs cover pretty much consisted of Hardman and Scott Moore. If we'd lost four half backs, our centre (Wheeler, though I'm also counting him as a half back), and our full back, we wouldn't have covered it as well as we have done/will do this year.

Losing just Pryce and Long would have pretty much sunk us.

He's certainly being considered, given that Saints have promoted him to the first team. Perhaps it was his impressive performance that got him the call up.

If the first team guys can play twice in a few days, so can the younger guys.

Pack is Graham Roby LMS Soliola Ashurst and TP

Wilkin, Lyon, Sculthorpe, Hooper or even James Roby could have all played in the halves had Longy or Leon been injured in that season. In the backs Vinnie Anderson, Lee Gilmour, Pryce could have covered the backs without causing to much disruption to the side.

that team/squad had far more strength in depth , when you can afford to leave players like Anderson and Fozzard out of your 17 you know you've got a good squad

Where hooper and Pryce ever in the same side??? Are we mixing some years together here.
I think we have had plenty of cover in the half backs this year we have just used it all.


Pryce, Eastmond, Lomax, Gaskell, Wheeler.. & Moore


I don't see many teams having a 6th and 7th choice half back pairing.

Take out Long, Scully, Lyon, Pryce, Hooper you are still left with Wilkin and Roby funnily enough and that is without correcting for players that where not in the same side.

They sure where in 2006. Leon was at 6 and Hooper played Loose Forward all year.

We must have. All we seem to produce are halfbacks and second rowers!

There must be a couple of kids in the Academy team who fancy having a go against the mighty Ull!

Cheers

Wilkin is a poor half back, Hooper nothing but a runner with little creativity about his game. We'd have struggled with those two in the 6 & 7 positions for any length of time (i.e more than about 40 minutes).

The fact that you've named our first choice stand off and two forwards (one of which was a guaranteed start in the back row) as back cover shows the poor depth we had in the backs at the time.

I cant agree with that for the simple reason we would have had the pack to get us up the field for starters added to which Hooper played his most succesful stint at Saints at 6. Wilkin isnt a novice at Stand Off so I think we would have been ok. Dont get me wrong we would have lost more matches but not as many as you think. I wouldnt consider naming our Stand Off and a starting player in the back row at the time as poor depth really. Its great to have utility players in your squad so that you can cover all but the worst injuries. Pryce has played Full Back, Wing and Centre for both club and country and Gilmour has played on the wing for Great Britian as well as playing Centre for Bradford on numerous occasions and for us when he have had a problem in the backs. So I stand by my point that in 2006 we had our best strength in depth.

He did, but with Long at his very best alongside him, without that, he'd have been far less effective.



He was then though.



I don't think we'd have lost more matches than we won, but we had very few injuries that year to test the depth of the squad, certainly far, far less than we've had this year. Pack wise we were fine, you've done nothing to persuade me otherwise in regard to the backs considering you've named forwards to cover backs