Jump to content

Hurrell to Saints?


Recommended Posts

On the basis that you have an injury rate of about 1/4 of your squad at any given time, plus squad rotation, he'd be a useful backline addition.  He could really capitalize on their go forward.  Less sure about him as a second row but it's a pretty well worn path for 30 year old ex outside backs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 106
  • Created
  • Last Reply
4 minutes ago, Tonka said:

On the basis that you have an injury rate of about 1/4 of your squad at any given time, plus squad rotation, he'd be a useful backline addition.  He could really capitalize on their go forward.  Less sure about him as a second row but it's a pretty well worn path for 30 year old ex outside backs.

These days there's not a great deal of difference between centre & 2nd row in terms of positioning and plenty have made the transition. Sione Mata'utia started out as a winger before moving the centre and then 2nd row. Peyroux did it recently for Saints, signed as a centre and started there but moved to 2nd row and was arguably more effective there.

St.Helens - The Home of record breaking Rugby Champions

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Tonka said:

On the basis that you have an injury rate of about 1/4 of your squad at any given time, plus squad rotation, he'd be a useful backline addition.  He could really capitalize on their go forward.  Less sure about him as a second row but it's a pretty well worn path for 30 year old ex outside backs.

Lot of cap space for a squad filler.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, M j M said:

I'll judge a coach by how they improve a club. Coming into an already successful place where the predecessor has done an amazing turnaround job means there remain question marks. Sorry if that offends you.

In contrast take someone like Tony Smith who has materially if not fundamentally improved every club he has coached at.

Not Woolf's fault but it's harder to judge him.

If you dont think Woolf has improved Saints, I dont think you have been paying attention. Under Holbrook we played a lot of nice, attacking rugby but we were prone to an epic choke in almost every major game we played. We barely scraped by Halifax in a semi, completely lost it against Warrington at Wembley, and whilst we got the duck off our back against Salford in the 2019 GF, I think we still struggled to see the game off. I would go so far as to say a Holbrook team would have lost last years Grand Final. Had we lost that game, we could have ended up with the flat track bullies tag.

Woolf has added a serious amount of steel and fortitude to our game. Its not the pretty side of the game, but Saints fans can go into big games confident because of it. I also think our supposed "boring" attack is somewhat overblown, it may not have been as slick as it was under Holbrook, but we have had the same backs pretty consistently for 5 years now, most teams have learned how to defend against us (though stopping the tries is another thing altogether). Over the last couple of weeks we have been alot more unpredictable with Welsby and Dodd and have looked a lot slicker for it - its a good time for us to have a shake up this year. 

As for Hurrell - he has a decision, put the effort in, be the game changer everyone knows he can be, and impress his international coach in the process, or Mata'utia, Sironen (as has just been announced), and Batchelor all start in front of him, with Wingfield and Forster not far behind. Thats not a bad position to be in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 03/09/2021 at 18:20, Magic Superbeetle said:

If you dont think Woolf has improved Saints, I dont think you have been paying attention. Under Holbrook we played a lot of nice, attacking rugby but we were prone to an epic choke in almost every major game we played. We barely scraped by Halifax in a semi, completely lost it against Warrington at Wembley, and whilst we got the duck off our back against Salford in the 2019 GF, I think we still struggled to see the game off. I would go so far as to say a Holbrook team would have lost last years Grand Final. Had we lost that game, we could have ended up with the flat track bullies tag.

Woolf has added a serious amount of steel and fortitude to our game. Its not the pretty side of the game, but Saints fans can go into big games confident because of it. I also think our supposed "boring" attack is somewhat overblown, it may not have been as slick as it was under Holbrook, but we have had the same backs pretty consistently for 5 years now, most teams have learned how to defend against us (though stopping the tries is another thing altogether). Over the last couple of weeks we have been alot more unpredictable with Welsby and Dodd and have looked a lot slicker for it - its a good time for us to have a shake up this year. 

As for Hurrell - he has a decision, put the effort in, be the game changer everyone knows he can be, and impress his international coach in the process, or Mata'utia, Sironen (as has just been announced), and Batchelor all start in front of him, with Wingfield and Forster not far behind. Thats not a bad position to be in.

Where have I ever said I though Woolf had improved Saints ?

Its MJM who thinks the basis for judging how good a coach is on how well they've improved a team not how many trophies they've won or how well they consistently do in the league. Its just his own delusional way of trying to justify why he thinks Leeds have the best coach in SL

St.Helens - The Home of record breaking Rugby Champions

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Saint Toppy said:

Where have I ever said I though Woolf had improved Saints ?

Its MJM who thinks the basis for judging how good a coach is on how well they've improved a team not how many trophies they've won or how well they consistently do in the league. Its just his own delusional way of trying to justify why he thinks Leeds have the best coach in SL

Not at all. I think Hull KR have the best coach in the league.

I'm struggling to work out why you don't think it's harder to judge the performance of a coach who comes into a top team and retains their position than a coach coming into a poorer or underperforming team and significantly improves them (or goes to a series of teams and improves them).

Again, sorry if this upsets your sensitivities which clearly remain delicate after Saturday's humbling.

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.