maury is a british citizen now not an aussie whos had is passport fiddled, we are on about 1st team not fringe players.

Although Irish obviously and not strictly "British" - Pat Richards' entire family are Irish. He was the only child to be born in Australia after his parents emigrated and spent a lot of time in Ireland in his childhood.

Now I would still refer to him as an Aussie - but if you are including Maury then surely you must see how Richards counts on even more satisfying grounds?

Who is fringe apart from Sam Tomkins and Pryce?

Richards dosnt need to become a british citizen matey..his parents are Irish.he could have played for GB without stepping foot into the uk.unlike maury.

he took british citizenship , hence he is now classed as BRITISH richards born ib aus classed as irish not british, you have done the same with carmont. lets call it a day as you cant get round facts.

Brian Carney was Irish but played for Great Britain.

The team is actually GB and Ireland.

Carmont is Samoan not British? And isn't the team "Great Britain and Ireland" like when Carney played?

The 'your' was more you as a club than you personally. As was the post really.



I'm not so sure on that tbh. I'm of the opinion that very few of the young players you've released turned out to be good enough for a club looking to challenge for honours, Wild and Robinson possibly, and Robinson has stagnated and not progressed as I thought he might. You've produced average SL players in the last 10 years for the most part, rather than any of real quality. The quality players you have produced you've kept hold of in Hock and O'Loughlin.

I agree that the coach [iis[/i a problem though, he's been poor in youth development throughout his career. Your current crop of U21s outplayed ours in last years final series, with a number looking better than their Saints counterparts, I wonder how many will get the required game time under Noble for them to make the next step up or at least have a chance of making that step up.

But isn't that par for the course? As John Monie once said if you get two or three players from a champion U21 side that are good enough for the first team you are doing well? Hock, Hansen and Lockers are roughly the same generation of players. Goulding, O'Carroll, Presott and McIllorum are.



It is this season Noble has to prove he is interested in bringing these players on. Most people focus on Sam Tomkins but I think there are other players as well who need at least the odd game even if it just to show they are in the 1st team coaches plans. It is early days yet but has past record has not been good at doing this. Maybe a few bad results would force his hand but I'd rather it be planned rather than desperation if he does bring players into the side.

Dave

I think that Saints have got to this position by a combination of reasons, some of them good planning, some forced by finances, but largely because in the cyclical nature of the game, it is Saint's turn to have some top youngsters, as it was for Wigan when Farrell Radlinski and co came through, and for Leeds when McGuire, Burrow and Mathers came through. The top teams will have times when the dice rolls in their favour, they have to make sure they capitalise on it when it is their turn. And then again, maybe we will get thrumped by Warrington, and the wonder kids will all flop..........

True enough, though I think the jury is still out on the last four you mention, they could go either way.



If there are a few bad results I think there's even less chance of him blooding youngsters, he'll retreat even further into his shell, rather than trying to change it. Injuries may be the only chance they get.

The tone of that blog is so negative towards the club it's bordering on ridiculous in terms of bias.