In my opinion it was more intense for a forward when Wardy was playing. ill explain why.
Wardy had to play for the full 80 minutes, not for him the luxury of getting a breather after 20 mins then only coming back for the final 20 of the game.
Also in those days RL was a lot more rugged with a lot of cheapshots going unpunished. Todays RL is played by angels, compared to the trained killers of Wardys era.
After the match players didnt have the luxury of sports science to help them recover, there were no cryogenic chambers to take away the bumps and bruises. The medical science of fixing injuries was also far less developed. Any serious injury and your career was over.
Wardy had to be in work the next day lifting paving stones, whereas todays full time pros just go into rehabilitation, where they get hydro therapy, and physiotherapy etc.
Wardy had to play sunday, wednesday, sunday in a season that could encompass over 50 games. Todays players moan about having to play 30 games.

The key to being able to continue playing after 30 is in the legs. Provided the legs retain the speed then you can keep on going. Steve Menzies being the freakish example of a player who at 38 is still better than most backrowers in SL.
Manu is the type of player who if he loses a yard of pace could move into the front row. So while i think 2 years would be optimal, 3 years isnt that risky.

Not sure I agree with this. He plays the game at a high intensity and it wouldn't surprise me to see his level of performance drop off in the second year never mind the third if indeed there is one, not to mention the increased likelihood of injury as he gets older. He'll be 33 early into next year, it would be crazy to offer him three years on (assumedly) big money.

I'd take him on two years as he's showing no signs of Lodi g it at moment and I'd also be happy to offer a 3rd year option in our favour.

I'd take the risk with Manu personally, I think he is quality in a market that doesn't have great players in it and that isn't going to change anytime soon with the NRL salary cap increasing. We're competing for 2nd tier players and Manu is definitely at the higher end of the scale, despite his age.

I just want us to sign a Prop whose legs are too fat to pull up his socks. They're always ace.

or as the old saying goes,

In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king.

British RL fans in the years ahead are going to really have to readjust their expectations as to the talent they will see in the competition, not only will our best seek their fortune down under, but few aussies of any quality will deem it worth their while coming to these shores.
We have already seen the first signs of the future, but once the NRL salary cap grows and the wealth gap between a buoyant Australian economy and an economically depressed UK economy widens. Then the trickle may turn into a flood of players seeking their fortune down under.

That would be ideal.

yep, it'll be 2nd rate imports or older 1st rate ones. I prefer the latter

Warrington have tabled a six figure offer for Bateman. Would be a better signing longterm, using the money we've offered/put aside for Manu. It'd be a good move for him too. Get him out of Bradford and into a fashionable, cosmopolitan town. Looks like a gypsy bare knuckle boxer with that tattoo and mullet.

Can see why Warrington want him now.

I think it's always easy to be gloomy, but rugby league and saints will still be here in 10, 50, 100 years time, and people will still be turning up to watch them. My dad when he was alive used to talk about the droves of people turning up to watch saints, packed houses the like of which I never saw at Knowsley rd. I grew up watching saints in the 70s with the other 3000 speccies on a cold wet Wednesday night, week in, week out. Do I enjoy the game more now, watching highly paid, well drilled, professional players? No, not really. I loved watching the likes of kel coslett, billy benyon, Geoff heaton and co. will I still support saints if we go back to being semi pro, or of we no longer bring over tge likes of perry, flannery or hohaia? Absolutely.

The length of the deal is the only concern, but as far as I am aware he does not suffer any long term niggles, if it was a finish on 35 there would be no fuss we would want him.

The 3rd year will only turn out to be a disaster if he picks up a big injury in his 1st or 2nd years.

for all we know this 3rd year may be an option.

Great player. Gutted he's leaving. Plays 80 minutes week in, week out. Rarely injured. Spell him effectively and he'll easily do 3 more years

Batemans a good young player no more no less,dont get carried away.

I've not seen anything special with Bateman but he's looked like he's more than handled himself for such a young lad.

I think whitehead looks the better out the two.

Talking of young forwards, Warrington have a great young lad in Ben currie (so I'm told) and he's set to be a superstar. Saints made enquires but been told where to go.

I would never call having Manu in your team a risk.The guy is quality.
I am sorry he is leaving Hull.

Sure, Ward played for eighty minutes. But so did players ten, twenty or thirty years prior to that. Are you suggesting someone aged 33 from any of those periods could compete, too? The key here is [iintensity[/i. Basically you are saying 50 minutes of high intensity football is the same as 80 minutes at lower intensity. But this is like arguing ten minutes sat naked in minus 40 degrees has the same effect on the human body as thirty spent at minus 10 degrees (which is not true).



We're talking about the body's ability (at age 33-35/36) to cope with SL intensity football - not outrageous cheap shots (which are largely gone from the game). Having your jaw broke three times in your career has no measurable effect I'm aware of on one's cardiovascular system.



You're right. We do possess all sorts of recovery aids players from yesteryear never enjoyed. Now, given all these medical miracles HOW MANY 35 year old second-row forwards / props regularly do the business for SL clubs? How many are there in the NRL - a cash-rich competition which is far in advance of our own in terms of recovery methods and systems.



The way you talk anyone would swear Ward spent his working day in some Anatolian granite quarry, shackled at the ankle and flogged within an inch of his life. Other than the fact that he lifted paving stones you have no idea about the details of Kevin Ward's working day. For all we know he lifted flags once a week and in the remaining days performed other duties. In any case there is no known correlation between the two roles so discussion is pointless.



You're pulling this stuff out of the air. It's like saying scuba diving to twenty five metres twice in one day has the same effect on the human body as once to fifty.



I'm not a sports scientist but even I know "Speed" has nothing to do with it. The truth is there is no single key as the body is an enormously complicated biological mechanism. We could talk about the cardio-vascular system and the chances of it being able to match approximately the output of someone ten years younger. We could talk about our individual ability to resist the restrictions of age. There are any number of factors standing in a player's way past thirty. I'm not saying they cannot be overcome but in a high-intensity, high-collision sport the chances are slim - as evidenced by THE SHEER RARITY OF 35 YO PROPS in SL & the NRL.

You might be happy locking up a hefty chunk of the club's change for three years on a long-shot. But when there are far more pressing issues at scrum-half and centre I'd say signing Manu amounts to reckless panic buying.

I wouldn't say he's a panic buy but he is defo a risk and one I wouldn't be prepared to take.

i'd take it! much better buy than Lance

I disagree.

I don't think Lance is a bad buy. I just don't think he is suited to the 6 spot.

I don't think Manu would be a good buy, period.

Glad you've come around to evey other saints fans verdict on lance not being a halfback.

I agree, Manu will be good signing.

I came around to that POV weeks ago now.

so where should he play? Lance is a jack of all trades, master of none!

But then which spot is he suited too???

FB, well I think you are included with quite a few others including myself in being cheerleaders for Makinson at FB, so we can't play em both.

Hooker, well that is a chunk of cash to be throwing at a hooker to replace Roby for 20 mins a match.

LF: is an option but not really a great option.

In the end there is not a lot of need for him he was a panic buy where as Manu is not a panic buy, he's a quality player and is coming in to replace Flannery and maybe dixon, so there is space in the 2nd row. He maybe costing more than the player he is replacing, but it is a like for like replacement. Where as Lance was a square peg for a round hole.