Re: Redundancy
Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 9:52 pm
True, yet who would have thought that Barrett would renege on his contract or that Luialui would be inconspicuous in so many matches and Higham's form during his stay has been more a case of "if only!". Ditto situations with Chris Ashton and DV..... ad nauseumjosie andrews wrote:You are correct Dave, if you look at Leeds and Saints their teams have consistency in the main positions and that is what brings them successDaveO wrote:I wonder if the recruitment policy of the club will ever work. We had Barrett for three years (in theory) and now we get Smith for 18 months. Riddle is here for three seasons.JARJAR wrote:
PS Mickey Higham was the only one (and even he wasn't faultless)last night who showed any pride in the shirt -so why are we determined to get rid of him.
It should have been pretty easy to retain Higham and while people wil say he isn't good enough or as good as Riddle well in three seasons we need a new hooker and there is no guarantees it will be McIllorum.
If you look at Leeds and Saints key players such as Diskin, Burrows and McQuire who have been there ages. We seem to think giving players three year contracts is as good a way to work. These contracts don't even run in over the same three years so the players see changes in key positions in even less than 3 years if you see what I mean.
When we were last successful we had players like Edwards, Farrell and Radlinski in key positions for a long time.
People focus on the turnover of coaches saying its bad to change them so quickly. I think they are barking p the wrong tree. It's the turnover in players in key positions that is the problem IMO.Dave
