Quote JWP="JWP"Because you'd always look for longevity. The problem with any overseas signing is that it's always a hole that you'll have to backfill relatively quickly, one year, two years etc.
First choice for me, would be to sign a young English halfback, like I said, Myler, who you could think would fill that void for a decade. If he's not available, and the plan is to continue with a policy of one/two year fixes, I'd sign the bloke who I firmly believe would be comfortably the best halfback in SL. Problem you'd have, assuming that Monaghan sees out the duration of his contract, and Lockyer came for two years, is that you'd be looking at replacing your halfback combination all at once.'"
If you have to backfill after a couple of seasons then theres no problem with that, you can look around the market, see whos in form and whos a good bet for signing at the time. What would happen if Britain produced a young halfback that was even better than Myler, or if we produced one ourselves....? Saints had Jason Hooper in for a couple of years then Leon Pryce came on the market and they got him in.
There's no point looking for longevity if the player is not top dollar. If we signed Greg Inglis then that would be someone we could look at filling the void for a decade, but there are still questions over Myler...if we had him for the next decade are there any guarantees he would be better than Briers was for a decade?
Also lets stop talking so much in 5 year plans, long term everything, how about get things right for the here and now. Put a quality team on the pitch and bring young players through into it. Then when players come off contract you look around at the market and make the best decision for then.
In 1993 we had a decent team with some good hard working players, and Jonathan Davies came on the market and he made us a top side and took us to within an inch of the title. Would we have been better off going for someone like Graham Holroyd or Tony Smith who could have been our halfback for a decade?
