Add to that he's new player. Some players take 3 month to fit in and others take 12 month. He's a new halfback playing in a new system at new club with no regular halfback alongside him.

Would he be worth the fee if he wasn't Australian?

I don't get your persistent question about him being a aussie. Was kyle Amor worth the fee we paid?

Yes.

The fee was required as there were halfbacks tied up to long term deals everywhere.

We also wanted Kevin Brown but he was tied down to a huge deal at Widnes. We had no halfbacks and no idea if Walsh would return. If we had a fit Walsh and Lance was a great 6 would we have been in for burns? Probably not, but we where, were we where.

Yes Pete, predicted it 4 years ago.



But in the end we needed a halfback, who else could we have got in August last year????

Please name a half that was off the class required and going for free?

I just think Burns is one of these players that comes over and ends up being massively overrated just because he played in the NRL. If this was an English player do you really think people would be happy with his performances or consider him to be good enough to be playing for a team near the top of the league, or that Saints would've even been interested in him? Heck, aren't you the guy who said that you wouldn't pay a transfer fee for Theo Fages, who at 20 years old is already a far better player than Burns?

You mean the Theo Fages that that's had half of good season ? I remember Sean Devine have 3 good games and he was the next Alex Murphy and remember Ste Tyrer having few good games and being hailed as next Jamie Lyon.

My point is, you can watch a young kid for half a season and pay £800,000 that salford want or pay £60,000 for a player that's played NRL and super league with a history you can look back on. Imo it's sinple

I'm not talking about paying £800k, just that Burns isn't a great player, he's a mid-table plodder and always has been in both Super League and the NRL. He's also older than Terry Campese, who was a legit star player that most people claim to be past it.

Burns WAS a good player in his first season at KR. Even the most one-eyed Robin admits this.

He then went down injured and has never really been the same since. Whether the injury robbed him of what pace he had or his legs just wore out naturally - I really don't know. My guess is that Saints figured Burns just needed time to get over his injury without knowing his legs were permanently shot. It's a common mistake - but one which you really should pick up either through your scouts or during the fitness test prior to signing.

The things is with Burns is, he's always done more defending than your average half backs, and he's no spring chicken at, 31.

What a nightmare for Walsh last night. Nothing went right and some of his passes were never on. At one stage I expected him to be taken of and I think he would have been if Wilkin had been on the field. Burns' defence and enthusiasm gets the shirt for me but his creativity is to say the least below average. When will we again see a saints side with halfbacks.

We need them to perform as a proper partnership come semi final time, the more they play together the better the chance of there definitive roles. Burns is OK his competitive streak is an 80 min one which set up that last winning play, Walsh is a bit lost, his timing and decision making is is all over the shop, he's 4 games in so he should be getting game awareness. I'm sure its just temporary, see how he goes next week.

We are so one dimensional when it comes to attack. Did Quinlan touch the ball in an attacking move from the HBs?