We could apply a test to our players - who might be good enough to beat Saints in years to come, and play those players. So, there would be no point picking Isa ahead of McDonnell. And O’Neill would get a long run out (which, fingers crossed, he will be getting after Powell’s tackle). Meanwhile, if we have a set of scales we will see that Partington will never make an impact at a high level, and let him go. There are players like Shorrocks and Smith, who may be up to it, but the jury is out, and so I would play them as much as I could. We won’t beat Saints this year, we are clearly inferior, but we can entertain and lay the foundations for years ahead. Similarly Halsall for Miski.
Of course, we won’t do this - favourites like Powell and Partington will get long term expensive contracts, and we will go back to shopping at Aldi for Miski calibre players. It is frustrating, but at least Peet has turned us into entertaining also fans, and there are plenty of weeks to enjoy where we are not playing Saints.
Player ratings vs Saints
Re: Player ratings vs Saints
Not sure playing the young lads helps them. Not sure the team is right to do that either. We already have normally around three players who seem to be first choice whom in reality should be squad players. Obviously that weakens us but it's then when we lose another couple we see the real effects. Bringing a young lad like we did with Smith last year into that does them no favours.
Re: Player ratings vs Saints
Ideally you bring a couple of kids in at a time to a settled senior team with good success. That's how saints have been able to maximise the success of the players they've brought through and how we used to do it. Having half a dozen development players in the team at the same time does no one any good. Partington and Smithies have suffered from this IMO.
