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.'"
I think it's a good question. I don't think there's a team that produces top quality props on a regular basis (i.e. every 2 or 3 years). At most clubs their best props are signed rather than homegrown.
Sutton is quality and probably the best prop we've produced in a long time. Mossop was also nowhere near as bad as he was made out to be. He was one of the best young props around but unfortunately injuries really took their toll. He's not a bad prop these days, although a little short of the standard he probably could have achieved.
I always thought Paul Prescott was the unluckiest of our homegrown props in the last couple of decades. He had so many injuries throughout his career but actually had the ability to reach a very high level. He had outstanding defence, could make strong carries, had a good offload and he was one of the best at putting in short passes to put players through gaps. The problem was all of those good qualities appeared bit by bit in between frequent injury layoffs. When he finally started putting all of those qualities together (and reached the age where he should have hit his prime) he had to retire.
One of the issues in recent years could be the way that Wane liked the props to play. A low number of carries during a game was presumably the trade off for much quicker line speed in defence. He also liked players going to ground as soon as possible to enable a quick play the ball. That suits some props but not all. Defence was always the most important aspect for any prop forward under Wane. That's why Scott Taylor was frequently left out early on, as was Romain Navarrete. If Wane was still here I don't think Joe Bullock would have played so many games and certainly wouldn't be considered the key player that he currently seems to be. Not a lot of our props were able to stand out statistically, or have their names mentioned frequently during televised games so they don't get noticed as much.
In terms of developing props, looking at other clubs (academy produced players in bold)Massey, Clark
CatalansCasty, Bousquet,
Simon, Kasiano
HuddersfieldEnglish, Ikahihifo, Walne
HullBowden,
Green,
Matongo, Paea
RoversSingleton, Crosby, Peteru,
Oledzki, Albert, Seumanufagai
LondonKrasniqi
SalfordThompson, Douglas,
Lees, Amor, LMS
WakefieldCooper, Tasi, Akauola, Clark
WiganPartington,
Byrne
There isn't really any club that relies heavily on academy produced players in their front row except for Hull FC. Looking at that the conclusion I'd draw is that when it comes to props recruitment is the most important thing.
I'd guess that the reason for so few top class home grown props at many clubs is the fact that they don't develop properly until mid to late 20's and sometimes they just don't see the point in keeping hold of a player who isn't good enough until that happens. If you've got a prop who is 21 and decent but hasn't quite developed is it worth keeping hold of them for another 4 years until they develop into a top player, or is it best to let them go and sign someone who might offer more immediately?
I think over the last 6 or 7 years we've signed props who mostly fit Shaun Wane's style, along with some duds (Lauaki, Andy-Bloody-Powell!). Signed props to play the Shaun Wane way was probably a little easier. They need to be tenacious defenders and to some extent their attacking ability and strong carries was almost a minor concern. If we're going to be playing a more traditional style of rugby and make greater use of the front row I think we need to start signing the best props from other clubs. I'm not sure the 'projects' that we used to sign will be as effective. In my opinion it's easier to coach a player to defend better and improve their line speed than it is to get them to run hard and effectively enough to be considered one of the best props in the competition.
