Slow News Day ??
sounds a bit ' told You So '
It doesn't really matter if Robinson paraded Tomkins etc past the old Salford board , they would have all been sold or left prior to going belly up.

When we were at the Willows, hardly a month went past without a complaining letter in one of the RL papers from Mrs Robinson at the poor take-up by the club of what her hubby had found. These became especially vitriolic if we signed someone from Aus/NZ. The comments became a bit staid after a while: I could glance to know what was being said as it was the same old story.

I had hoped that this had ended. There are players I am aware we missed out and others I wish we had missed out on. C'est la vie.

While possibly true the article reads like a self-righteous rant by someone who thinks they know it all. Can't really think what the article is trying to achieve...

Irrelevant History

This fella Robinson was brought in by his mate Phil Vievers and he stitched the club up with some absolute garbage signings. Interestingly he never mentioned to Barker all those terrible signings made on his recommendation. He's just bitter and wants to create some negativity because we terminated his services last year. There was also a story doing the rounds last year that Robinson and Alan Hunte didn't exactly see eye to eye, which explains his predictable criticism of Salford's junior development to Neil Barker.

All scouts are the same, they dine out on a player that makes it big but conveniently forgot to mention the hundreds of failures who don't make the grade.

As for Charnley there is no guarantee he would have developed as well at Salford. At Wigan playing outside Tomkins must have been a dream and really helped him to grow in confidence and establish himself.

Just one question. What do you think inspires Barker to write such negative rubbish when the club are trying hard to build some real positivity? It's like Barker is trying to impersonate Jim Bowen on Bullseye, now look what you could have won.

Think you will find that wasMick Robinson not Dave Robinson

Veivers on twitter backing barker up basically saying the club had a load of rubbish short listed to come in and even the next club captains listed.

It is history but it's far from irrelevant EB. Further proof (as if any were needed) of the shambles that was our club under Wilky, Tarry, Simms et al. The article is clearly the bitter rantings of an ex-employee but no one really doubts that the substance of it is true.

I’m taking what David Robinson says with a pinch of salt. Well done to him on recommending us a couple of players from Wigan’s academy, would we have signed them? Probably not and if we had we would have sold them a couple of years later (Myler, Ratchford etc).

I’d like to see a list of the players he also recommended that haven’t quite gone on to make the grade.

Not necessarily. In each case, the people involved (the scout on the one hand and the representatives of the club on the other) are trying to assess the [ipotential[/i of a young player. Sometimes you get it right, sometimes you get it wrong, but to suggest this particular set of events is symptomatic of the club as a whole in that period is a bit of a stretch. In Charnley's case, for example, it would appear that Wigan didn't rate him too highly at that time either, given that they were paying him such a pittance. You can also cite the cases of young players like Scott Naylor and Matty Smith who weren't considered up to scratch by their respective clubs, but who Salford, under the same management, saw the potential in.

Doesn't it just prove EVERY club misses such chances? Charnley was there for anyone's taking.

I don't doubt the difficulty in identifying young players. I remember Alan Hunte saying at Forever Reds how we had the option on Sam Tomkins but passed on him. These things happen but I'm happy to view the MEN article in light of everything we know about the club in that era and say, with confidence, that whatever good practice in this area is, we weren't doing it.

It would be more of a stretch to draw the conclusion that this area of the club was functioning well while the rest of the club was clearly not fit for purpose.

And scouts will always lament the ones that got way.... But only the ones that made it!

A few years ago, I suggested a young amateur player to one of the development staff. A lad who at 14 and 15 looked very average among a team with 9 others who went to pro clubs. At 16, in the absence of former team mates who had signed, this player blossomed and is now, deservedly so, a first choice in the Saints side.

Now 21 years old, of those 9, only two have made SL appearances.

For all of the, so called, player selection and development, it is so easy to get it wrong when trying to pick out those who will make it and those who will fall by the wayside.

A sad fact for the youngsters involved is that in scholarships and academies, a small number of players will make it while they others are just there to provide the teams in which they play. The ones that don't continue with the SL clubs can still have good RL careers elsewhere while others become disillusioned and stop playing altogether. I know a number of good young players, including one who did play SL, who have hung up their boots.

I agree, and I don't think anyone is making, or has ever made, that stretch. It's just unfortunate that the people who have decided the previous administration was a shambles still seem to want to fight yesterday's battles (perhaps recognising that they never quite managed to land the killer blow) and pounce on any negative report to labour their point.

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... art-683437 Heres another of his articles.

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... art-683437 Heres another of his articles.