I would say that it is all relative to the club.

If he were playing in NL1, he would be very good.

If he were playing for a small SL club with very little ambition, he would be adequate.

In reality, he's playing for one of the biggest clubs in the whole of rugby league which is supposed to have ambition to match.

I would say that makes him $HITE

Are we one of the biggest clubs with ambition or are we just kidding ourselves? He was the only 7 we could afford/get which tells you where we are as a club i think.

We absolutely are, and always have been, one of the biggest clubs in RL, in everything apart from the boardroom.

As a business we definately are which is why i think the reverse to you. I think our senior management and 'board room' have made us the only SL club to be currently operating at a profit. Everything else we have currently seems to be way off and going backwards from what we had 2003 and 2004.

For me, the size of the club isn't necessarily linked to on-field success, at least in the short term anyway. If you were to look at fan base, turnover, attendances, merchandise, list of honours throughout history etc.... It would be obvious to anyone that regardless of the fact that we currently have a very ordinary squad, we are, and always have been, one of the biggest clubs in world rugby league.

Size and ambition for me are linked to the present not the past. We are definately high up on all of the things you mention but ultimately performances on the pitch are what makes us a big club like Saints and we are nowhere near for me. We've won 1 trophy in how many years?

Assuming you mean major trophies, 18 years.

I think that there are some concerning similarities with Newcastle Utd becoming more and more apparent. Huge fan base of very passionate and vocal fans which demand success, a board that just keeps making very poor decisions and scoring own goals, consistent rumours and problems within the club, constant underachievement on the pitch etc.. etc...

There is no doubt that our success on the field over the last ten years or so would not be considered that of a big club but the club, as a whole, is one of the biggest even though you would have to question the current board's priorities and lack of ambition.

As posted on the other thread, you cannot say that when Agar is asking for leaders to make decisions, a scrum half is THE leader, and Thorman doesn't do it, you say he is playing to instructions.
He runs too laterally, doesn't commit defenders, his passing is laboured, his kicking is below the standard required, his defence is ordinary, and he lacks urgency, he doesn't organise the forwards at either 1st or 2nd reciever, rarely has momentum when taking a pass.

In summary a crap excuse for a scrum half IMO.

A very long wait.