Jump to content

Souths looking to sign Luke Thompson


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Not was, would be now.

Not having Burgess in the league now, today makes the league weaker by any measure. 

Are you contorting again?

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply
14 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

I'm not the one pretending that 28year olds don't count for some reason.

No, that's not what I said.  What I said was that Ryan Hall and Kallum Watkins contributed 10+ years to Super League while others left at the height of their careers and would have contributed more if they had stayed in Super League.  This is a very reasonable thing to say when talking about how players moving to the NRL impacts the quality of Super League.

After my post, you jumped straight in to say that "taking the best 11 players out of the league is going to damage it" when two of the players I listed never even played in Super League... since then you have just been jumping around all over the place trying to justify this remark.

My point is, and remains, that George Burgess and Gareth Widdop in the NRL has not reduced the quality of the sport we see here because they didn't play first team rugby.  Of course they had the potential to play first team rugby but objectively the quality has not been reduced from what we have seen over the last few years as their talents have not been demonstrated in the league and then removed as we have seen with the likes of Graham, Bateman and Sam Burgess.

I was merely putting the English NRL based players in context and once again, you just wanted to jump in with an argument which was immediately proven as knee jerk and now you are trying to save face.

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Dunbar said:

What is the trend though. The last 12 months or so has seen two English internationals move over there in Ryan Hall and John Bateman and two English internationals move back in Sarginson and Joe Greenwood.

Next year Watkins will be in the NRL but Widdop will be in Super League.

I personally think that having a potential pathway to a career in Australia in the premier rugby competition in the world is a positive when attracting young talent to our sport.... I am sure that Sam Burgess et all are a good role model/motivator for the English Academy and youth teams.

Not sure I could put together a reliable trend analysis but I just sense there are a lot more British players in the NRL than there were 25 years ago when I first started watching the sport.  I agree with your last para; I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing.  I suspect the average spell in the NRL is around the 3 - 4 year mark so it's not like we always lose our best players for their whole career.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Lowdesert said:

What do you do if the salary is better?  Sure, it’s not everything but in what can be a short period where you can earn well, why not?

 

 

 

I agree with you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tonka said:

Not sure I could put together a reliable trend analysis but I just sense there are a lot more British players in the NRL than there were 25 years ago when I first started watching the sport.  I agree with your last para; I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing.  I suspect the average spell in the NRL is around the 3 - 4 year mark so it's not like we always lose our best players for their whole career.

I think there are certainly more players playing permanently down under but that is probably more of a consequence of the seasons now being in sync so short term spells are no longer valid.

We saw Andy Gregory, Kevin Ward, Ellery Hanley, Martin Offiah, Jonathan Davies, Sean Edwards, Andy Currier, Joe Lydon and others play in the ARL over the years but they didn't feel lost to our game.  The dynamic is different now as players will sign up for long term deals but I expect that we will see them back in the UK as well.

I think there is certainly an argument that says losing players at the peak of their careers such as Bateman is damaging to the league over here but I am really not sure what the answer is to stop it.

From a personal perspective, watching the English lads go around in the NRL is probably the part of Rugby League I am enjoying the most at the moment.

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

The loss of George Burgess has reduced the quality of SL. Had he not moved to the NRL he would have come through in to SL and SL would have been better for it. 

It's silly to say that because he had not yet made his debut we didn't lose out on what he became. 

According to your logic had Jamie Peacock retired at 20 having given up whilst on loan at Fev, Super League would not have missed out on the 15 years of great performances he went on to contribute. We wouldnt have missed out on one of the best players of the Super League era and it would have been no loss to SL. 

Stop being so binary in your thinking... I am trying to put these different players into context.  I have agreed that losing George Burgess from Super League hurts it (the same with Widdop) from a quality perspective.

But...

Losing Burgess and Widdop before their careers lift off is different to losing a player in his early 20's who is already a star player in Super league who then leaves and this is different again to a player like Hall or Watkins who have contributed a decade of quality to our league.

Can you not see this?

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

In the context of the discussion they are no different. 

It is a simple, binary issue. Would they be amongst the best players is SL? Yes

The fact that Hall and Watkins has long careers in SL doesnt alter or mitigate that, they fact Burgess didn't doesnt alter or mitigate that. 

They would be amongst the best players in SL, we have lost them, SL is poorer for it. 

I suspect that even you don't think that losing 31 year Ryan Hall to the NRL is the same as losing 25 year old John Bateman.

I also suspect that you are too stubborn to admit it because you have dug yourself into a hole in this discussion.

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

The same what? You are drawing a distinction without a difference.

Both at players who would be first choice in pretty much any SL side right  now. Both have been lost to SL.

Whatever contortions you are doing to try and pretend they are massively different and this somehow mitigates the loss to SL is just a really poor argument. 

Both of them are losses, both of their losses damage SL, both of their losses contribute to the view that permeates around the game that SL is not the place the best player play 'if they were that good they would go to the NRL'

Yeah but Hall is 31 and Bateman is 25 is not a meaningful counterpoint. 

I am at a loss to see how you cannot grasp that a player who is maybe 2 years away from retirement is in a different category to player who can play at his peak for another 7 years or so.

As you say, both of them are losses, both of their losses damage SL... only one is a loss for 2 years and one for maybe 7 years... of course this is different and it clearly and obviously different.

I know that your main tactic in arguments on these boards is attrition and so you will keep stating the same thing over and over until you get the last word.  So I will let you reply and have the last word and I will let others make up their mind on the topic.

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 18/06/2019 at 11:01, scotchy1 said:

The problem is that whilst this Luke Thompson goes to a better standard of competition, the next Luke Thompson comes in to a worse one. How is the next Luke Thompson ever going to reach the level of this one when he comes in to a poorer standard competition. 

To be fair if a kid comes into the Sts team now he’d be entering a better environment than Thompson did under Cunningham. Also he’d be pretty much surrounded by the same or better players. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

By the logic that our players improve when going to the NRL because of the increased standard there is the opposite effect happening when we lose those better players.

I.e would Thompson have been better now playing with James Graham and against the Burgii in SL and wouldnt the next Thompson be poorer because when comes through he isnt playing with or against players of that standard. 

Thompson came into the Sts team alongside Walmsley & Amor while playing against the likes of Hill, Watts & Taylor. The next prop off the Sts production line will play with and against almost exactly the same players.

I’d love to have the ability to create a utopian Shangri La where all the best players stay in our game forever but this type of attrition is natural and has ever been thus.

Players have always moved on, retired, chosen other careers or had careers ended by injury. The impact  of those things on youngsters in todays game is the same as it was on youngsters of yesteryear, we absorb the loss and replace those players and move on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, OMEGA said:

Thompson came into the Sts team alongside Walmsley & Amor while playing against the likes of Hill, Watts & Taylor. The next prop off the Sts production line will play with and against almost exactly the same players.

I’d love to have the ability to create a utopian Shangri La where all the best players stay in our game forever but this type of attrition is natural and has ever been thus.

Players have always moved on, retired, chosen other careers or had careers ended by injury. The impact  of those things on youngsters in todays game is the same as it was on youngsters of yesteryear, we absorb the loss and replace those players and move on.

If the aim is to improve them as players and just as much, as people, then it follows that we should want the best for them and hopefully they should leave with dignity and best wishes.

Its a professional game.  One injury and it would be ‘what he could have been’.  All players should take the best chance for themselves and give it a good go.  Saints rightfully are trying to protect their investment, but it’ll be Thompson who decides not McManus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.