Continuity, and a settled team...

[AncientWarrior]

DaveO, I must take issue with you on this. Are you implying that because we have had a settled team for one season we should be successful?

The main reason IMO why Saints have been so successful over recent seasons is because of the team's continuity. In addition, the 'backbone' of the side (i.e. numbers 1, 7, 9 and 13) have been virtually ever-present during those years. Every successful side in RL has had players in those positions who were virtually permanent fixtures - take the last Wigan side to win a trophy: Radlinski, Lam, Newton and Farrell as an example.

The famous Bill Shankly was once asked by a newspaper reporter before a mid-season match, "What's the team today, Mr Shankly?" He replied, "The same as last year!"

This is the mentality I believe the new owner's should adopt instead of the 'quick-fix', 'buy success' syndrome which has blighted the club in recent years. We need a strong team 'backbone', preferably manned by British players who won't be leaving after a 2 or 3 year contract to go back to Oz or N.Z. In short, we need continuity!!!!

[Wigan_forever1985]

AncientWarrior posted:
DaveO, I must take issue with you on this. Are you implying that because we have had a settled team for one season we should be successful?

The main reason IMO why Saints have been so successful over recent seasons is because of the team's continuity. In addition, the 'backbone' of the side (i.e. numbers 1, 7, 9 and 13) have been virtually ever-present during those years. Every successful side in RL has had players in those positions who were virtually permanent fixtures - take the last Wigan side to win a trophy: Radlinski, Lam, Newton and Farrell as an example.

The famous Bill Shankly was once asked by a newspaper reporter before a mid-season match, "What's the team today, Mr Shankly?" He replied, "The same as last year!"

This is the mentality I believe the new owner's should adopt instead of the 'quick-fix', 'buy success' syndrome which has blighted the club in recent years. We need a strong team 'backbone', preferably manned by British players who won't be leaving after a 2 or 3 year contract to go back to Oz or N.Z. In short, we need continuity!!!!

100% agree :eusa2:

[Doveoverdave]

AncientWarrior posted:
Saints have been so successful over recent seasons is because of the team's continuity. In addition, the 'backbone' of the side (i.e. numbers 1, 7, 9 and 13) have been virtually ever-present during those years

Like Longy being out for long periods this year and struggling for form?

KC being way past his sell by date and now the no. 2 hooker to the young Roby?

Sculthorpe the best 13 in the country and GB captain hardly playing a game for 2 years?

Wellens accepted as the rock of the team and probably the best clubman in the country.

[AncientWarrior]

Have you been watching a different Long to me?

Cunningham is the best hooker in Super League by a mile.

Saints success goes back further than a couple of seasons.

[- psycho -]

AncientWarrior posted:

Have you been watching a different Long to me?

Cunningham is the best hooker in Super League by a mile.

Saints success goes back further than a couple of seasons.

he's right about long, he has struggled for form when he's played and though the odd glimpse of magic can be seen soemtimes, it's not what we've come to expect from one of the best scrum halfs in the world.

cunningham isn't as good as roby i don't think. id much ratehr have roby in my team.

scully is constantly on 1 leg.

wellens isn't that good. he's a good solid full back, but he is hyped up by the 3 muskateers.

[Wigan_forever1985]

Roby is a fantastic talent, however, you cut his runs from dummy half out and he struggles KC is a quality player he has masses of strength and is very very difficult to stop.

Wellens well i cant help but feel its sour grapes because he is a very good player the only thing he lacks now is pace. His positional play is second to none, you say "oh yeah he's dependable but..." being a full back dependability makes up 90% of how good you are, e.g why ashton struggled to win us over.

[GeoffN]

AncientWarrior posted:
DaveO, I must take issue with you on this. Are you implying that because we have had a settled team for one season we should be successful?

The main reason IMO why Saints have been so successful over recent seasons is because of the team's continuity. In addition, the 'backbone' of the side (i.e. numbers 1, 7, 9 and 13) have been virtually ever-present during those years. Every successful side in RL has had players in those positions who were virtually permanent fixtures - take the last Wigan side to win a trophy: Radlinski, Lam, Newton and Farrell as an example.

The famous Bill Shankly was once asked by a newspaper reporter before a mid-season match, "What's the team today, Mr Shankly?" He replied, "The same as last year!"

This is the mentality I believe the new owner's should adopt instead of the 'quick-fix', 'buy success' syndrome which has blighted the club in recent years. We need a strong team 'backbone', preferably manned by British players who won't be leaving after a 2 or 3 year contract to go back to Oz or N.Z. In short, we need continuity!!!!

That was pretty much my point; I'm quite used to disagreeing with DaveO!

The other point is that they can introduce their youngsters gradually into an otherwise settled team - the reason that the likes of Roby, Graham, Moore etc are coming along so well is exactly that.

I do take the point that their senior players are getting past their "sell-by" dates now, but they've been able to bring along their replacements over a period of years ready for that time (as we did in the 80's); we've never been able to do that recently, and always seem to be panic-buying short-term stopgaps.

[DaveO]

AncientWarrior posted:
DaveO, I must take issue with you on this. Are you implying that because we have had a settled team for one season we should be successful?

No. I am saying the fact we have not had settled teams in the past is not of any great relevance to how the team has played this season. We have had few injuries this year to key players and the team has played together for about 30 matches this season off you include the cup.

Not many sides can say that so while it won't guarantee success it isn't much of an excuse for the teams poor performance this season that in 2004 and 2005 we swapped out a lot of players or whatever.

People are always looking for excuses. The team hasn't been together long, the packs rubbish, Ashton going to RU disrupted the team, Hock has off field issues,. Fielden has off field issues etc etc. The list is almost endless and I don't think given how luck the team has been with injures you can add lack of continuity to the list. These players are professionals and many internationals who play with other players for rep rugby rarely but seem to manage OK.

This is the mentality I believe the new owner's should adopt instead of the 'quick-fix', 'buy success' syndrome which has blighted the club in recent years. We need a strong team 'backbone', preferably manned by British players who won't be leaving after a 2 or 3 year contract to go back to Oz or N.Z. In short, we need continuity!!!!

Well it hasn't been a very good start on that front has it? Coley aged 29 for two years and this season we signed Withers and Millard on two years deals as well.

Dave

[GeoffN]

I'm really putting the theory forward not just for this season, but to (partly) explain our lack of success over the last 10 years or so.

IMO, one of our biggest failings has not been so much lack of individual skill, as lack of teamwork.

Saints, and to a lesser extent Leeds & Bradford, always play as, and look like, a team. We don't.
They always seem to have players in support of a break. We don't. They back each other up in defence. We don't.

Much of this comes from years (not just months) of playing in the same side.

Lok at the average length of stay for the players from the "glory years"; we had a nucleus of key players on long-term contracts.

Edwards, Farrell, Cassidy, Betts, Cowie, Radlinski, Hampson, Bell, Connolly, Dermott, Gill, Hanley, Kiss, Lydon, O'Connor, Platt, Robinson, West:
all had more than 200 appearances for us; to me that's a pretty imprssive list. Not all of them are "stars" by any means, but they knew each others' games inside out.

At present, our "veteran" player is O'Loughlin, with about 120 games.

[Shevi 4 life]

GeoffN posted:
I'm really putting the theory forward not just for this season, but to (partly) explain our lack of success over the last 10 years or so.

IMO, one of our biggest failings has not been so much lack of individual skill, as lack of teamwork.

Saints, and to a lesser extent Leeds & Bradford, always play as, and look like, a team. We don't.
They always seem to have players in support of a break. We don't. They back each other up in defence. We don't.

Much of this comes from years (not just months) of playing in the same side.

Lok at the average length of stay for the players from the "glory years"; we had a nucleus of key players on long-term contracts.

Edwards, Farrell, Cassidy, Betts, Cowie, Radlinski, Hampson, Bell, Connolly, Dermott, Gill, Hanley, Kiss, Lydon, O'Connor, Platt, Robinson, West:
all had more than 200 appearances for us; to me that's a pretty imprssive list. Not all of them are "stars" by any means, but they knew each others' games inside out.

At present, our "veteran" player is O'Loughlin, with about 120 games.

Yea your right. stians have had long out for three or four games and replaced him with matty smith and they were just as good.there senior players are getting on put they got some superb youngsters to replace them with not throughin a paddy and buying every overated aussie like we do.