DaveO wrote: ↑Sun Apr 17, 2022 12:14 pm
Sorry but this is nonsense. The idea the club is basically clueless as to when a player should hang up his boots is nuts. It should decide when this is. So for example it could decide he’s good for a another two year deal and then that’s it.
That is how the club used to do it and it recognised that players in their thirties however good they once were can’t go on forever and performance inevitability drops off. So they were let go and younger players were brought in either from the academy or from outside. Players like Dennis Betts and Andy Farrell were not kept out of the side by someone in their mid thirties who fancied another season.
In the past players at the end of their careers were let go and replaced. Not offered new contracts until they could hardly walk. The club used to plan replacement of its players but now it looks like it doesn’t have any idea how to do it.
In my opinion the reason we have seen players offered new deals who should have be been let go like Clubb was is the club’s recruitment and scouting is failing to find suitable replacements coupled with a misplaced sense of loyalty (which also means it doesn’t look to replace average players with better quality ones regardless of age).
Tommy might be defying his age most of the time but the club should have sorted out a replacement long before now. Not gone with this “he’s a legend, he gets to decide when he retires” nonsense.
I think we will have the same with Faz and also Powell.
I'm not saying a club is clueless as to when a player should hang up his boots, I'm saying they can't possibly plan right now for Farrell's retirement when he's yet to show any significant decline. Given there are players who play past the age of 35 it's possible Farrell could still have two contract renewals before retirement.
I assume you're not suggesting we should let Farrell go at the end of his current contract? If I'm not mistaken his contract expires this year and he's still very much one of our most important players. So are you saying that right at this moment the club should be saying 2 more years and that's it? What if in two years he's still playing at a high level.
At the moment Farrell isn't keeping players out of the team because he fancies another season. He's probably the most consistent back row forward in the competition still and even a 30% drop in performance would have him among the better back rowers in Super League.
What the club does have to do is work out what length of contract renewal to give him but that's the case with any player in any situation. If you had to guess any current Wigan player that would still be playing at a high level at the age of 35+ I think most would pick Farrell.
I'm really not sure how the club could have a concrete plan in place right at this very moment for Farrell's retirement that was clear enough that a fan on an internet forum could reasonably expect to know what that plan is. I mean what would your plan be?
The club will be well aware that he won't play forever. I think they'll give him a 2 or 3 year renewal and then over the course of that contract is when planning will take place on whether he needs to be replaced with a new signing or whether younger players have already begun to surpass him.
I can understand why some might look at Lockers retirement as poor planning although I'd argue that was just not being ruthless enough. He was allowed to stay for longer than he should have, I don't think anyone would disagree. At the moment you can't really say we've held on to Farrell for too long.
But Welsby would never have signed for us as mentioned earlier, he’s a Latics fan! 