Just a feeder club

Discuss all things Wigan Warriors. Comments and opinions on all aspects of the club's performance are welcome.
nathan_rugby
Posts: 4166
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:12 pm

Re: Just a feeder club

Post by nathan_rugby »

Exiled Wiganer wrote: Thu Jul 02, 2020 9:12 am I wonder if the only realistic future for the game would be for the NRL effectively to take it over, and for clubs like ours to become sister clubs to NRL ones, with common ownership. Not quite a feeder club, but potentially benefiting from the greater professionalism and central resources that the NRL can call upon... By the way, I would recommend Etihad or Emirates for flights to Sydney.
Are you serious thinking that’s even remotely possible ?
Bomhead - "Lockers to prop."
User avatar
EagleEyePie
Posts: 434
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2019 9:42 pm

Re: Just a feeder club

Post by EagleEyePie »

fozzieskem wrote: Mon Jun 29, 2020 2:13 pm If a player leaves they should stay left,to me this is the greatest club in the world and you leave it at your peril but for some reason Lenegan seems to think that by offering a way back when things go wrong is the right way,it isn’t and I do t care who you are.

The child like comments of “well I do t want to see player x in a Leeds (for instance) shirt is purine once a player goes he goes with my good wishes and I don’t want to see him turn out again in a Wigan shirt,you sacrifice that shirt for “lifestyle” or other such nonsense usually money is fine just don’t come back,players come and go the club is the constant and there’s not one player I’d have back frankly.
This is just daft as a policy, and "I don't want you back because you left" seems quite childlike. Imagine if Farrell had a season ending injury and we desperately need a back rower. Bateman is available and wants to return to the UK. Wire are the only other realistic competitors and no other top players are available. You'd have the club just ignore the availability of a quality player because they used to play for the club and left? And end up without a replacement while also allowing a rival club to sign him unopposed?

The simple fact is it's just crazy for any club to implement a blanket policy for itself that could prevent them from signing a quality player if they became available. There's a very clear goal for recruitment - sign the best players you can within the salary cap. It doesn't matter if they've played for the club before or have never heard of the club.

Offering players a way back is just a means of protecting the clubs interests. It's not a guarantee of a return. If a player leaves and they aren't good enough to return to the club or we have good players there already you just don't bring them back. If they do become available and they are good enough then it makes sense to try to sign them. It's a limited market. There's no point making recruitment even harder than it needs to be.
User avatar
Wigan_forever1985
Posts: 6560
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 9:50 pm

Re: Just a feeder club

Post by Wigan_forever1985 »

EagleEyePie wrote: Fri Jul 03, 2020 1:42 pm
fozzieskem wrote: Mon Jun 29, 2020 2:13 pm If a player leaves they should stay left,to me this is the greatest club in the world and you leave it at your peril but for some reason Lenegan seems to think that by offering a way back when things go wrong is the right way,it isn’t and I do t care who you are.

The child like comments of “well I do t want to see player x in a Leeds (for instance) shirt is purine once a player goes he goes with my good wishes and I don’t want to see him turn out again in a Wigan shirt,you sacrifice that shirt for “lifestyle” or other such nonsense usually money is fine just don’t come back,players come and go the club is the constant and there’s not one player I’d have back frankly.
This is just daft as a policy, and "I don't want you back because you left" seems quite childlike. Imagine if Farrell had a season ending injury and we desperately need a back rower. Bateman is available and wants to return to the UK. Wire are the only other realistic competitors and no other top players are available. You'd have the club just ignore the availability of a quality player because they used to play for the club and left? And end up without a replacement while also allowing a rival club to sign him unopposed?

The simple fact is it's just crazy for any club to implement a blanket policy for itself that could prevent them from signing a quality player if they became available. There's a very clear goal for recruitment - sign the best players you can within the salary cap. It doesn't matter if they've played for the club before or have never heard of the club.

Offering players a way back is just a means of protecting the clubs interests. It's not a guarantee of a return. If a player leaves and they aren't good enough to return to the club or we have good players there already you just don't bring them back. If they do become available and they are good enough then it makes sense to try to sign them. It's a limited market. There's no point making recruitment even harder than it needs to be.
To play devils advocate

can you name a single player who returned to the UK not for 1 of the following reasons;

1) they flopped in the NRL
2) they carrying an injury that prevented them being kept on
3) they were close to retirement years and extend their career in superleague

i can only think of hardakers brief stint in which a player didnt return half the player they were when they left, most often a player returns injured, they flopped in the NRL or they are ready to retire.

so i dont think the policy is as bad as claimed
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure
fozzieskem
Posts: 6494
Joined: Sat May 14, 2016 10:54 am

Re: Just a feeder club

Post by fozzieskem »

Wigan_forever1985 wrote: Fri Jul 03, 2020 2:35 pm
EagleEyePie wrote: Fri Jul 03, 2020 1:42 pm
fozzieskem wrote: Mon Jun 29, 2020 2:13 pm If a player leaves they should stay left,to me this is the greatest club in the world and you leave it at your peril but for some reason Lenegan seems to think that by offering a way back when things go wrong is the right way,it isn’t and I do t care who you are.

The child like comments of “well I do t want to see player x in a Leeds (for instance) shirt is purine once a player goes he goes with my good wishes and I don’t want to see him turn out again in a Wigan shirt,you sacrifice that shirt for “lifestyle” or other such nonsense usually money is fine just don’t come back,players come and go the club is the constant and there’s not one player I’d have back frankly.
This is just daft as a policy, and "I don't want you back because you left" seems quite childlike. Imagine if Farrell had a season ending injury and we desperately need a back rower. Bateman is available and wants to return to the UK. Wire are the only other realistic competitors and no other top players are available. You'd have the club just ignore the availability of a quality player because they used to play for the club and left? And end up without a replacement while also allowing a rival club to sign him unopposed?

The simple fact is it's just crazy for any club to implement a blanket policy for itself that could prevent them from signing a quality player if they became available. There's a very clear goal for recruitment - sign the best players you can within the salary cap. It doesn't matter if they've played for the club before or have never heard of the club.

Offering players a way back is just a means of protecting the clubs interests. It's not a guarantee of a return. If a player leaves and they aren't good enough to return to the club or we have good players there already you just don't bring them back. If they do become available and they are good enough then it makes sense to try to sign them. It's a limited market. There's no point making recruitment even harder than it needs to be.
To play devils advocate

can you name a single player who returned to the UK not for 1 of the following reasons;

1) they flopped in the NRL
2) they carrying an injury that prevented them being kept on
3) they were close to retirement years and extend their career in superleague

i can only think of hardakers brief stint in which a player didnt return half the player they were when they left, most often a player returns injured, they flopped in the NRL or they are ready to retire.

so i dont think the policy is as bad as claimed
Off hand I too can only think of Hardaker coming back of his own accord and that’s because it was a loan deal to begin with,all the other have come back a shadow of the former selves.

Wigan seem to be about to resign Bateman who’s had 2 count em 2 shoulder ops within months of each other surely alarms bells are going off at robin park?

All I see is another Sam Tomkins debacle of signing a player who clearly wasn’t fit and took the best part of two years to get back to anything like the form we all knew he had,by then of course Catalan came a calling so we got him fit mainly it seems to me for their benefit.
Warrior20
Posts: 244
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2015 9:57 am

Re: Just a feeder club

Post by Warrior20 »

Wigan_forever1985 wrote: Fri Jul 03, 2020 2:35 pm
To play devils advocate

can you name a single player who returned to the UK not for 1 of the following reasons;

1) they flopped in the NRL
2) they carrying an injury that prevented them being kept on
3) they were close to retirement years and extend their career in superleague

i can only think of hardakers brief stint in which a player didnt return half the player they were when they left, most often a player returns injured, they flopped in the NRL or they are ready to retire.

so i dont think the policy is as bad as claimed
Only 2 I can think of are Cooper and Wardle.
cherry toffee
Posts: 218
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2015 10:42 pm

Re: Just a feeder club

Post by cherry toffee »

If a player decided to leave there's nothing the club can do but they should make the decision as hard as possible they could do this by not asking for a first option clause.this may make the player have second thoughts and at the same time it doesn't stop the club making an offer on that player should he ever become available in the future
cherry toffee
Posts: 218
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2015 10:42 pm

Re: Just a feeder club

Post by cherry toffee »

Of a player decides to leave there's nothing the club can do but they should make the decision as hard as possible,they could do this by not asking for a first option clause.this may make the player have second thoughts and at the same time it doesn't stop the club making an offer on that player of he ever became available in the future
User avatar
EagleEyePie
Posts: 434
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2019 9:42 pm

Re: Just a feeder club

Post by EagleEyePie »

Wigan_forever1985 wrote: Fri Jul 03, 2020 2:35 pm
EagleEyePie wrote: Fri Jul 03, 2020 1:42 pm This is just daft as a policy, and "I don't want you back because you left" seems quite childlike. Imagine if Farrell had a season ending injury and we desperately need a back rower. Bateman is available and wants to return to the UK. Wire are the only other realistic competitors and no other top players are available. You'd have the club just ignore the availability of a quality player because they used to play for the club and left? And end up without a replacement while also allowing a rival club to sign him unopposed?

The simple fact is it's just crazy for any club to implement a blanket policy for itself that could prevent them from signing a quality player if they became available. There's a very clear goal for recruitment - sign the best players you can within the salary cap. It doesn't matter if they've played for the club before or have never heard of the club.

Offering players a way back is just a means of protecting the clubs interests. It's not a guarantee of a return. If a player leaves and they aren't good enough to return to the club or we have good players there already you just don't bring them back. If they do become available and they are good enough then it makes sense to try to sign them. It's a limited market. There's no point making recruitment even harder than it needs to be.
To play devils advocate

can you name a single player who returned to the UK not for 1 of the following reasons;

1) they flopped in the NRL
2) they carrying an injury that prevented them being kept on
3) they were close to retirement years and extend their career in superleague

i can only think of hardakers brief stint in which a player didnt return half the player they were when they left, most often a player returns injured, they flopped in the NRL or they are ready to retire.

so i dont think the policy is as bad as claimed
Those reasons are irrelevant.
1) It doesn't matter if they flopped in the NRL if they play well in Super League. Bevan French wasn't considered good enough for the NRL - is he not good enough for us? Blake Green wasn't considered good enough, but he's probably the best halfback we've had in the last decade. How they play in Super League is all that matters.

2) Again, it doesn't matter if they are carrying an injury as long as that doesn't prevent them from playing well in Super League. Signing anyone who is currently injured can be a risk, but all clubs do it at some point.

3) It doesn't matter how old they are as long as they can still play well in Super League. The obvious example in this case - Gareth Ellis.

The other points though have some merit, although I wouldn't say many returned 'half the player they were'.

Tomkins had a slow start recovering from his injury but he wasn't bad for us. We allowed him to leave because we didn't think he was quite good enough to justify his salary but based on early season form he's the joint best fullback in the comp alongside Bevan French. I doubt it would be a regret had we kept him instead of signing Hardaker.

Greenwood was an instant success returning from the NRL. He arrived and became our most dangerous player that year pretty much instantly. His current lack of form has more to do with the unfortunate succession of injuries he's suffered after that. You can't blame him repeatedly getting whacked on the head on a failed stint in the NRL.

Sarginson left for the NRL and returned as the same old Sarginson. He certainly didn't return as half the player that he was. He's still better than any of our centres bar Gildart. Hardaker will get there though.

Mossop didn't come back from the NRL worse. He came back the same player. He wasn't great for us before he left. He didn't seem particularly great for us on his return. He's been outstanding for Salford though and generally better than our own props. No props particularly shined under Shaun Wane, except perhaps Flower, and he's hardly universally praised as a good player.

Mike Cooper was a fairly run of the mill hard working prop when he left Wire to join the NRL. He's been a fairly run of the mill hard working prop since his return.

Mark Flanagan was never actually good enough for the NRL, but probably returned from there a better player for Saints than he ever was for us. Of course he was still fairly young when he left us and improved over time, but it certainly didn't affect his career.

Going further back, Adrian Morley was a success after returning from the NRL.

Joe Burgess, admittedly, isn't as good as when he left, but bizarrely he was actually playing well enough to have stayed on at the Rabbitohs but couldn't having already signed for us. I do wonder whether his regrets have hampered him at Wigan ever since. The idea of signing a 1 year deal last season was almost certainly because he wanted another crack at the NRL - and yet he's played himself out of a chance.

Basically, returning from the NRL doesn't mean someone is finished. It's not a career killer. It's all about the individual player and the individual circumstances and how much they have to offer.
DaveO
Posts: 15880
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002 5:32 pm

Re: Just a feeder club

Post by DaveO »

Regarding point 3 in your post I think that does matter.

It’s another version of signing over the hill overseas players. They just started out here first that is all.

For years we complained about how easy it was for clubs to sign overseas players near the end of their careers who may have once been really good but were now obviously past their best.

The fact they were good enough to play in SL is an indictment of the game here. It’s used to be the easy option to sign an overseas player rather than grow your own. So someone like Ellis is just the same.
User avatar
EagleEyePie
Posts: 434
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2019 9:42 pm

Re: Just a feeder club

Post by EagleEyePie »

DaveO wrote: Fri Jul 03, 2020 11:38 pm Regarding point 3 in your post I think that does matter.

It’s another version of signing over the hill overseas players. They just started out here first that is all.

For years we complained about how easy it was for clubs to sign overseas players near the end of their careers who may have once been really good but were now obviously past their best.

The fact they were good enough to play in SL is an indictment of the game here. It’s used to be the easy option to sign an overseas player rather than grow your own. So someone like Ellis is just the same.
It may be an indictment of the game here, but the point still stands that if they are actually still good enough to play in Super League then signing them is worthwhile.

The point is that it's no different to signing an older player from another Super League team. The only slight difference is that a 31 year old in the NRL is playing in a better competition than a 31 year old in Super League. Even if they are past their best they can still be good players. Particularly since a player being past their best is still likely to encompass a large part of their career (particularly if they were really good), unless they are one of those who peaked relatively late. Cameron Smith has been past his best for a while but he's still a damn good player. His best just happened to be him being the best hooker in the world by a country mile. There's a clear difference between someone being past their best and no longer good enough.

So in the case of Gareth Ellis, he was a decent player who was more than good enough for Super League. It's also worth a club looking at signing someone like Ellis if they are lacking a bit of experience. Getting 6 good years out of a player is impressive in any sport.

I think like every signing it's about balancing the pros and cons. If Wigan were trying to sign Benji Marshall then yes I'd be concerned, because not only is he near the end of his career but he'd also have to deal with travelling halfway around the world and adapting to a new competition at that age. It might be a bit of a boost signing a big name but on the field there are clear risks.

In every single sport signing older players carries risk but ultimately it can still be worth it if you want to sign the best players available.
Post Reply