Quote: sergeant pepper "Simple question - does the club have an issue when it comes to developing, identifying and getting the best out of props?
Development - Sutton, Crosby, Prescott, Mossop, O'Carroll all produced by the club, with only Sutton potentially on the cusp of doing anything of note. Who was the last great prop we produced - possibly Andy Faz, but it would be a stretch to call him a prop? Think about other players we've produced in that time like Tomkins X2, Faz, Gildart, Burgess, Manfredi, HH, Ashton, Williams, Mcilorum etc.
Identifying - Bullock, TT and Clubb all started life at either wing or centre and, whilst I'll give Bullock more time, we do seem to keep going back to the same formula that hasn't produced great results. Chris Hill was missed/not picked up by the scouts and you hear stories about us not moving for Walmsley because of his lack of lateral movement. Add in Taylor who had the heart or a pea / no desire to be the best and you've got a sorry tale of picking the wrong guys.
Performance - Lima, FPN and Pettybourne came over with decent reps and whilst the first two weren't as bad as people make out, they didn't exactly set the league on fire. It's taken a move to the NRL for Sutton to be the player we know he can be too. When was the last time we saw a dominant prop performance? Lima in the CC final (I know I said he didn't rip up any trees) or Coley n the WCC?
People will point to Flower and he's been great, but that's one guy vs more than a handful who haven't been great.'"
Great post, but I think we've been unlucky with some. Taylor's a good example, desire looks like it's the thing which has stopped him from being the monster he could've been, but there's only so much you can point the finger at Wigan for there. I'd put Dudson, Sutton, Mossop, Prescott and Hamlin in the 'unlucky bracket' too for different reasons. Dudson and Sutton, very promising youngsters, one who never quite had the right temperament/application, the other left just as he was maturing. Mossop could have easily become a really impressive big-minutes prop if injuries didn't turn him into a shadow of the player he could've been. Prescott was never going to be top level, but would walk into the current team and had his career curtailed by injury. Hamlin is obvious, but looked like he could've been a monster.
Think there's also something to be said for our strategy of trying to sign props who are more athletic, can put the big minutes in and make up in defence/stamina what they lack in eating up meters. I actually don't mind this so much, seeing as we won so many finals off the back of it, but it does mean that:
1. When the props lose their athleticism, it stands out like a sore thumb, see Clubb
2. You still need the backs to make up meters. Not so easy if Richards of this world are being swapped for the Marshalls
3. If you suddenly want to change the style, you suddenly have a set of props that aren't well suited to the traditional way of playing the position.
Not saying that this approach would have been everyone's cup of tea, but it would explain why we passed on Warmsley when he was younger when it looked like he probably wasn't going to be a great defender/big minutes prop.
