Jump to content
Total Rugby League Fans Forum
Sign in to follow this  
CrushersForever

Souths looking to sign Luke Thompson

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

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?

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dunbar said:

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 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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deleted.

 

Edited by Allora
  • Like 1

Talent is secondary to whether players are confident.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Dave,

I did not want the flack from others so it was easier to delete my post.

 

  • Like 1

Talent is secondary to whether players are confident.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

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.

What categories are we now dividing players in to and why are we doing this?

However your own logic falls down on this point and you have massively contradicted yourself.

You have argued that George Burgess wasnt a loss at all and shouldn't count, yet here you are arguing that Bateman is a bigger loss than Hall because he may end up playing in Australia for more of his career and as such represents more of a loss. By this logic then far from being no loss at all Burgess represents the biggest loss of all, a player whose whole career has been lost to SL. 

Personally as I said pages ago on this thread, it's a fool's errand to try and quantify the loss, it's basically impossible. 

We have however lost these players and the effect of losing these players today is the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, OMEGA said:

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. 

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...