We need some more players of this type, he's just what we've been missing. A niggly get who winds up the opposition. Wigan have O'loughlin, Leeds have Sinfield

Wane didn't pull the plug. The plug was pulled for him.

Burns is a good player but will be 31 years of age at the start of next season, so this will be his last big contract. I certainly (from Wigans p.o.v) wouldn't offer anything more than a two (or even one plus one) deal. If another club came up with a three or more year contract offer then if I were in Burns position I would snatch their hand off.

I think he's got a good 3 seasons left him in. 2yr with option of a 3rd is good IMO.

Not if it held back the development of Powell, Williams and Hampshire (even Shorrocks)

So your basically saying Green doesn't need replacing ?

In the halves you want quality and experience, it's such a pivotal position where alot of organising, talking and dictating of the plays take place.

The latest article from Brown is pretty ominous for me. He says Dave Hewitt is a good prospect but not yet ready for 1st team rugby and we are actively looking at experienced options for next year. If Burns does sign and gives us 3 years (with Walsh only here for another 1 maybe 2 probably at best) it will allow a smoother transition for us to blood Hewitt (or even Charnock, who keeps getting mentioned) over time and allow him to grow into the role naturally rather than throw him in at the deep end expecting him to dominate and direct more experienced players around the field.

If we sign Burns for next year our 1, 6, 7 and 9 options are fantastic, the best in the league by a long way and it will give us much more flexibility in the squad.

No, I'd have taken someone like Burns, but only on a max two year deal, similar to the way we have used Matt Bowen.

Why is that ominous? Seems he is talking a lot of sense, and you are agreeing with him?

Eastmond was always injured in his last season at Saints, and has spent a huge amount of time missing due to injuries at bath, where he hardly ever has any physical contact with anyone else! He would have been another Wheeler, paying him a wedge to sit on the physios table would have been suicidal.

Wrong use of the word there, but you get the point!

Steady on soldier!

People said exactly the same about our pack, yet Amor, Walmsley, LMS, Laffranchi, Manu, Sia, Masoe, Laffranchi and Roby somehow still seem to be bullied when it mattered.

There is a lot more wrong at Saints than personnel on the field. Sure we had some stunning holes in the squad that should never have been allowed to materalise and which are slowly being closed. But until there is a massive change in culture at the club we will not win a thing. I don't think we'll ever win a trophy until the likes of McManus, Rush and even (Although it's not nice to say it) Cunningham and Wellens leave the club. To win in professional sport you have to be clinical and ruthless, qualities we simply do not have on any level.

I could also dissect your assertion about those players in comparison with other clubs too. Is anyone convinced by Lomax? Looked bright as a kid, flourished at full back for a brief period, then spent 12 months looking jaded during which his performances were nothing to get excited about. Hopefully his op will fix this, but he's not kicked on for me and there are quite a few that could claim to be better fullbacks in SL.

Burns would be good at 6, adding some of the grunt we need. Is Walsh going to be here next year? Is he going to be healthy enough? Is he going to be the same player he was? All massive question marks. Even Roby at 9 is debatable. Clarke is out and out better than Roby now and he'll be playing for Warrington next year.

This is the article Blobby has referred to. www.saintsrlfc.com/news/page/4230

This is the article Blobby has referred to. www.saintsrlfc.com/news/page/4230

By the player or Lenagan?

Either way I think it works out to be the correct decision for Wigan. We can't afford to hold the young players back and risk losing them. I'd be nervous if we only had the one option but to have three cracking lads fighting over it gives me confidence.

Burns will be a good signing for anyone who gets him mind.

Would people rather have Travis burns for 2-3 seasons or take a punt trying to prise someone like Ryan Hampshire away from Wigan? Not all three of the youngsters can play 6 at the same time. I suspect least one of those 3 is going to be looking for regular first team action next season.

Burns without hesitation. He is proven, he can step up and do it NOW. Sometimes these project signings don't work out and even if they do, they take time. We as a club want and need success now and sometimes signing an experienced player with plenty know-how is the best way to achieve it.

Hampshire will be in the NRL within 3 years anyway IMO, so it's not like we'd get more miles out of him anyway.

A decent dose of reality rather than a common blanket grumble.
Its true that there's more than individual players that make the quality of the squad. We keep signing improved quality, but still find it hard to achieve on the pitch, whereas them buggers o'er the hill seem to lose quality every year but actually improve. This I agree on.
I too think its seemed all to easy for Cunningham to find himself in the assistants role and expect Wellens to do the same. Wane spent years earning his stripes as a coach with juniors before he got the assistant's role at Wigan.
IMO there's a discrepancy between what our club expects the individuals to contribute, to what we expect to acheive as a club, as if sooner or later its bound to come good because we're Saints. Even if we signed the best 17 players in SL, there's still going to be teams out there with decent players who are going to fight tooth and nail and train the house down all week to get that Superleague trophy.

Players like Burns are very important as not only are they quality in their role, but they lead and inspire other around them with confidence.
I've been of the opinion that we've only got a few holes to plug, but they're massive ones.
Standoff is one, the other is an aggressive pack leader - a westwood, a peacock, a McIlorum/Flower/O'Loughlin. LMS threatened this last year when he was belting frogs about, but he went right back into his shell. We seem to walk a tightrope when playing well that once we deviate a little, it all goes to pot.

I don't doubt our stars' qualities. I still think Lomax is a gem, although he has looked semi fit a lot AND was probably stifled in his wide pivot role by our problem at 6 for large parts of the early season.

Roby is a great all round hooker. He's not got the zip that he used to (or Clarke has now), but he's a much more rounded player. The problem is he looks absolutely flogged.

Amor and Walmsley will continue to improve, Masoe even starting to look very good.

For me, filling the stand off role with someone who can cope if Walsh is out is the most important. After that, the back row is looking a bit wet.

If Swift could get back in gear and Turner could keep form, then I'd be happy with the back line.

I am going to reserve total judgement for when the season is over. Brown noticeably changed gear going into last year's playoffs. Perhaps something similar will happen this year. I can't see us doing too much given our key injuries, but the manner of the performances will be interesting.

I would prefer to go for the young English man, if I was confident of it working out, but I feel our soft underbelly is the one thing holding us back. Seasoned, hardened, quality pros like Burns are what we need the most and our lack of them is our major flaw IMO.

Can you afford to gamble?

Burns is your safe punt who will do a good solid job for you for a couple of years. He's not a halfback that will score 25 try's in a year and win you games on his own but he's a very good player.

On the other hand Hampshire is a gamble. He's the best young player of his age group and could be anything. There is never a guarantee a young player will keep on progressing though. If he reaches his full potential he'll be a full international and one of the very best players in superleague.

It'll be far harder to sign Hampshire though.

Name a better 1, 6, 7 & 9 combination in SL than Lomax, Burns, Walsh & Roby if that's what we have next season?

It would also allow Hohaia to play as a utility man to cover all those positions and keep the squad fresh.

You may be right on the culture of the club and you may be right that we do have some holes in other areas of the squad but you can't argue about the quality of that combination of players.

I'm starting to think Saddened just wants Mac out.

He has obviously been snubbed by the guy and is running some kind of agenda.

Roby is someone we are ruining as a club. Because he can do a full 80 we are getting him to do it and now he is slowly losing that edge he used to have.

I'm not sure why we are trying to burn the guy out. We never put Cunningham in a position like this, season after season. Cunningham had good understudies with Roby and Higham and I think it was only 1 season where we had to operate with just cunningham.

We are taking a great player and making him average, it would be simple to fix but we just don't seem willing now to take that 80 minute tag away from him.

Hopefully that will change if Burns is coming in, with Hohaia reverting to hooker on the bench and cover for the halfbacks

I'm hoping so, but it could also see Lance leaving if he does not want to be that utility player.

Lomax
Makinson Turner Jone Swift
Burns Walsh
Amor Roby Walmsley
Wilkin Vea
Thompson

Hohaia Flanaghan LMS Masoe

Wellens Dawson Percival Hewitt
Beaumont Richards Greenwood Savelio

Is where were at at the moment signed wise (+burns) - Id imagine: Burns = Laffranchis money, Vea = Soliolas (with change), which leaves Manu completely unreplaced, McDonnell unreplaced and Wheeler unreplaced, who will all be earning a decent sum. If Hohaia goes as well (another big salary if you believe rumours) then thats just more space, with a backup hooker/ another quality second row to pick up.

Back on topic, rumour has it were not even having to pay a fee for Burns, as he had a clause that allowed him to leave if Sandercock left...