It's an incontrovertible argument from final consequences (a logical fallacy). But little else.



I've played this game before and it's wearisome. I name a player - say Ratchford - and you just claim he isn't a realistic proposal (despite the fact that you have no idea whether Saints can afford him or not).



With all the straw men knocking about in this thread we'd best be careful someone doesn't drop a match. If labeling Francis Meli a defensive liability who has been directly responsible for THREE grand final defeats is "abusive" then we might as well give up critical debate. Moreover, at no point have I suggested we need the services of a Newlove, Joynt or other player of such caliber. It's easy to debate when you respond to words you've put into someone else's mouth. It's much harder when ventriloquism isn't allowed.

What strawmen would they be? I wasn't suggesting you were insisting on finding players of that quality as a priority in the slightest - you are however insisting on us finding players better than what we currently have - players that just simply do not exist. The strawmen it seems are gaily dancing around in your cornfield and not mine....

People who know a thousand times more than everyone else on this thread put together about the state of the league, our salary cap situation, player availability and the strengths/weaknesses of what we have available have decided that the players we have resigned are the best options available right now. Why do you think that you know any better than them, particularly given that, a half-back who is off to the bottomless salary cap at the Flatpack aside, you can seemingly name no other realistic targets? I am no fan of Gardner or Flannery by any manner of means believe you me, and I've wanted to brutally murder Meli on as many different occasions in the past as anyone else has, but the fact remains that there sadly just isn't anyone else better available right now.

Totally agree with Northampton saint.

Yep it looks that way

Don't exist? Have you arrived at this conclusion via some hitherto undiscovered mathematical proof - or an act of divination? Perhaps I should have used the word wicker rather than straw?

As stated, your argument is a logical fallacy. The fact that Saints have chosen to re-sign Meli is NOT proof he is the best player around. At the very least it denies the possibility of making a mistake.



That's a bull copout and you know it. Let's look at reality here. None of us know how much Saints have to spend on players. That said, McManus has repeatedly stated that we are spending up to the cap. Now, we can debate this until the cows come home [ibut the fact that McManus has said it is incontrovertible[/i. If we accept this at face value then no player (outside of the NRL's top stars) is off limits. After all, other clubs cannot spend more than us.



You keep talking about facts and 100% certainties without supplying any at all. And the suggestion that there hasn't been a single player in the past five years who is capable of performing well in a Saints shirt (over Meli and Gardner) is laughable. We could have gone for Ratchford. We could have gone for Westerman. Hell, at a push I might even have gone for Chris Bridge or Ryan Atkins.

Why would we be in for Ratchford when he would probably be a step down from what we already have?

You are correct - the fact that Saints may or may not have done anything is indeed proof of nothing. However, the fact that a cursory look up and down the Superleague, to any reasonable eye, finds absolutely no players available when the resignings were made any better however proves that Saints did do the correct thing.

Playing standards in SL are at an all-time low and there just aren't enough decent players to go around all the clubs that want them, particularly in the "skill" positions (to use an NFL phrase), so we all just have to make do and mend with the best players we can get hold of at any particular time. How many clubs now are having to play warmed-over 2nd rowers at centre as they can't find anyone better, just as we can't? It sucks but is a fact of life.

Because then we could have a hull style merry go round of players, let our "no hopers" go and fill the team with superstars from Salford and Wakefield. This would make some of the posters on this board happy, even of we did drop put of the top eight, at least we would have got rid of Gardner and meli

Proof to whom? Saints? Congratulations. I mean, even a serial killer will find some way to justify his actions. Objective proof - well, that's something else entirely. I'm wondering just how many logical fallacies you can fit into one post. First the argument from final consequences, then the straw man and finally the moth-eaten "No true Scotsman" retort ("to any [ireasonable[/i eye" etc.)

Which kind of sinks your argument. Not that you really had one in the first place.

Can you translate that into St Helens talk please?

rlBy all meansrl.

I'm from parr mate, I'm struggling to understand any of your posts but I gather the main point is being highly negative and ripping the team to shreds to sign players that we can't afford or ain't available.

Where is the "logical fallacy" in us not being able to sign any better players because there simply are none available? Can you post a link to a condescending wiki page that lists some of these magical quality players we can go and bring in now to settle the debate one way or t'other?

Get back in your box you pleb