Luke and Hodgy

[GeoffN]

DaveO posted:
I suppose it depends on what the club thought of Robinson moving to hooker full time.

No, as backup to Newton and/or Moran, just as Godwin is.

As it is we swapped one young player for another in (effectively) the same postion. Because of the 20/20 I doubt the club thought it could have both Godwin and Robinson as both would command more than £20K a year I would have thought this season.

Dave

That's my point - I'm not saying we should have both, but why not just keep Luke instead?
Unless, as has been suggested, there were other factors involved.

[DaveO]

GeoffN posted:

DaveO posted:
I suppose it depends on what the club thought of Robinson moving to hooker full time.

No, as backup to Newton and/or Moran, just as Godwin is.

The way I see it is Coyle is pencilled in as Moran's back up and Godwin was brought in as backup hooker.

If that is so then where does Robinon fit in?

As it is we swapped one young player for another in (effectively) the same postion. Because of the 20/20 I doubt the club thought it could have both Godwin and Robinson as both would command more than £20K a year I would have thought this season.

Dave

That's my point - I'm not saying we should have both, but why not just keep Luke instead?
Unless, as has been suggested, there were other factors involved.

[/quote]

I don't know about the rumours but could it be the club thinks Godwin is a better hooker and Coyle the better prospect at scrum half?

Dave

[GeoffN]

This is getting complicated, but I see where you're coming from. Wasn't Godwin picked ahead of Coyle for Moran's spot, though, except when needed for Newton? I was impressed with Coyle, but at 6 rather than 7.
We've had so many different half-back combinations this season that they must be getting dizzy!

[ian.birchall]

GeoffN and Y'all, you're missing the point as usual!
It doesn't matter where Wigan played Robinson last year, where are Salford playing him regularly this year, thats his true position surely?
It is also no use saying that Coyle might be a better prospect than Robinson, he is 3 years younger and we kept telling ourselves last year that with one more year of Lammy Robinson would be experienced enough to take over so Coyle must be 4 years away.
Even if Danny Orrs tackling is his strongest point I also do not believe that he would tackle any more than Luke Robinson who really was demonic with the number of tackles he made, I often thought he was tackling and using up too much energy instead of concentrating on attacking the opposition with ball in hand. Always respected Robjoenz opinions before and even more now he has pinned his colours to the Hodgson mast in the Hodgson/Vaelaeki struggle.

[DaveO]

ian.birchall posted:
GeoffN and Y'all, you're missing the point as usual!
It doesn't matter where Wigan played Robinson last year, where are Salford playing him regularly this year, thats his true position surely?
It is also no use saying that Coyle might be a better prospect than Robinson, he is 3 years younger and we kept telling ourselves last year that with one more year of Lammy Robinson would be experienced enough to take over

But we didn't get one more year before Lam left assuming you mean we would have had Lam this season.

I certainly didn't think Luke was ready to guide Wigan around the park this season and that we needed an experienced scrum half. The difference is our experienced scrum half this seaosn is Moran and not Lam.

The fact that we got rid of Robinson is actualy a different argument in a way. What I mean is if he wasn't ready we needed a new experienced scrum half regardless of whether Robinson was staying or going.

so Coyle must be 4 years away.

And Moran is 27 (or 28) so by the time he ready to hang up his boots Coyle will be ready. Seems like a plan to me.

Even if Danny Orrs tackling is his strongest point I also do not believe that he would tackle any more than Luke Robinson who really was demonic with the number of tackles he made, I often thought he was tackling and using up too much energy instead of concentrating on attacking the opposition with ball in hand.

What has Orr got to do with it? He is a stand off not scrum half.

Always respected Robjoenz opinions before and even more now he has pinned his colours to the Hodgson mast in the Hodgson/Vaelaeki struggle.

How long have people been saying we needed a big strong centre to beef up the 3/4 line? We go and get one in Vaelaeki and now people are ruing the loss of a lightweight who never showed the skills of a centre in the way Vaelaeki has so far. There is no pleasing some people.

Vaelaeki has only played a 1/3 rd of a season for us and already he has shown what we have been missing. He's not perfect but he is the best centre at the club and better than Hodgson who is, I thought, playing full back for Salford anyway.

Dave

[DaveO]

GeoffN posted:
This is getting complicated, but I see where you're coming from. Wasn't Godwin picked ahead of Coyle for Moran's spot, though, except when needed for Newton? I was impressed with Coyle, but at 6 rather than 7.
We've had so many different half-back combinations this season that they must be getting dizzy!

You are not the only one. As to Godwin v Coyle as a half back I think if Moran gets injured agan Coyle should get the place instead of playing players out of position. We may as well give him a run this season as we aint going to win owt so if it is a season for the young players to gain experience, then let them gain it.

Dave

[we_need_a_coach]

:conf: I think everyone is missing the point of this topic, which is.... there has been a misguided policy of releasing our young players, at the wrong time, and for little gain. And bringing in Aussies who are either over the hill, or just not good enough !

[Fraggle]

we_need_a_coach posted:
:conf: I think everyone is missing the point of this topic, which is.... there has been a misguided policy of releasing our young players, at the wrong time, and for little gain. And bringing in Aussies who are either over the hill, or just not good enough !

As far as I know, we get transfer fee money for releasing youngsters (up to a certain age), it's something we have done for years (how many of the players who've been U21's / U18's over the last 10 years have subsequently got 1st team places?) and we've had a long standing policy of "bringing in Aussies who are either over the hill, or just not good enough" (Malam, Reber, Florimo, Bell, O'Neill, Moore etc etc over the last 7 years I've been going regularly to games). This goes back a long time, even pre-Maurice returning to the club; it's not a new thing.

[DaveO]

we_need_a_coach posted:
:conf: I think everyone is missing the point of this topic, which is.... there has been a misguided policy of releasing our young players, at the wrong time, and for little gain. And bringing in Aussies who are either over the hill, or just not good enough !

I don't think you are right in saying that at all. What is your evidence?

We have two Aussies and two Kiwis in the squad. That is it.

Which young players have we relased? Robinson (for reasons discussed) and Hodgson who many don't rate.

Who else? Well everyones favourite is Briscoe but he couldn't get a game in front of Radlinski so was hardly released in favour of some old Aussie has-been.

The currect squad is full of young lads brought through the academy and in the recent past we have brought in young players from elsewhere as well - Tickle, Newton and Godwin.

We will certainly release young players in the future because of the 20/20 and the need to assemble a balanced squad with a mixture of youth and experience.

I have no doubt when we do people will moan but equally they will moan if we put out lightweight inexperienced sides.

Dave

[we_need_a_coach]

So you agree then ???
As I said, we give away good young talent for next to nowt, then we bring in Aussies who cant get a game back home !