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.