Quote: Last Son of Wigan "I mentioned Bateman...he's class, we didn't replace him with the same standard, don't think we ever could really. But at the time of the signings we brought in Hardaker, former MOS and quality for Sam, Greenwood, played for Saints and has NRL experience at a very young age, at the time of the signing it couldn't be disputed that Greenwood was a quality signing. Greenwood was always going to be Bateman's replacement. If you remember initially he was going to be coming in for this season to replace Bateman, not Joel. Joel originally wasn't set to go anywhere until his drunken rant at a barmaid in St Andish. This freed up space to allow Joe to arrive earlier.
Nevertheless clubs lose talent all the time, did Leeds really replace Sinfield and Peacock with equal talent? No. It can't always happen, it's part of team sport.'"
Wouldn't you consider Leeds as a good example of what a detrimental effect losing players can have, rather than showing it should be business as usual? Had they remained successful I would agree with the point but surely this particular example doesn't support your point, unless I'm missing something of course?
