Why not for goodness sake?

A pack of Perry/Roby/Laffranchi/Soliola/Wilkin/Flannery with a bench of TP/LMS/Clough/Wheeler is good enough to mix it with any team, including the unbeatable (as they apparently now are) Wigan.

There was a thread about this exact subject from 2011, created around June 2010 where we discuss this exact subject. I mention our weak squad depth and Wheeler being a biscuit and how he won't play 12 games and Blobby guarantees he'll play 20.

Our bench next season could be LMS, TP, Clough, Wheeler/Pryce.

In short, of course we can bloody compete!! To suggest we need 4 signings just to have a competitive bench is complete and utter nonsense.

I know your name gives a lot away, and fortunately I have not had the misfortune of reading all of your 17000+ posts, but you really are the most depressing person I have ever come across.

I think you lot are in denial. We're not as good as the top 3 sides and need to improve both on the field and in terms of squad quality and depth if we're to catch them.

Saddened! my little sweetpea, you are getting a tad hysterical. We don't have the right attitude this season and we have two inexperienced halfbacks. But our pack, if complete (including Scott Moore whose feistiness we really miss), is a match for any other pack in the league, without exception, so long as each member of it turns up to a game with the right attitude. Oh, and remembers their basic skills of how to catch a ball. Probably the two are connected, actually. Catching the ball requires focus, something our team is sadly lacking at present.

Not really, you just see my name and assume that. I'm saying we're not as good as the top 3, not that we'll finish outside the top 8 or get relegated and replaced by Leigh.

The teams we have been capable of putting on the pitch this season are not as good as the teams the top 3 have been able to field, no question.

Had Hudds played us in May with the equivalent of Pryce/Eastmond/TP/Flannery/Moore/Clough/Gaskell/Lomax/Wheeler/Dixon missing do you think they might just have struggled a wee bit?

You seem to be hanging a lot on the fact we didn't beat Huddersfield - with a pack/bench including Ashurst/Magennis/Armstrong/Makinson/Hale and with Ashe/Wilkin in the halves, are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that is a pointer for us being a worse squad and team?

given a fair run with injuries we can certainly compete with the top 3. We had a poor result on Friday, but even that squad that we considered relatively healthy (which it was compared to the Hudds team) had Perry, Pryce, Clough, Moore and Wheeler missing who would all be in out first choice 17 (three of them in the dominated pack).

I also don't think you give enough credence to the toll that playing with 10 players out for a period has on those left behind, particularly the likes of Graham/Roby/TP/LMS.

If we can get some bodies back it will freshen everybody up and we'll certainly be VERY competitive with the current top3.

Very sensible response. There is way too much knee-jerking from some of your fans this season. Ive said it before but to be where you are in the table this minute under the circumstances which you have been presented is pretty unbelievable in my opinion.

Its as though you string some decent wins together, then because you lost to Hudds with half a team missing, got beat last friday by a Wigan side that arguably played unbeatable rugby, that the squad needs massive changes? Its bizarre.

I agree to a certain extent (I know you're exaggerating a little

). I think one of the reasons Wigan have been successful of late is their ability to produce young, explosive second rowers. Obviously the main reason for the success is the coach they have and the methods he uses, but in the past few years Wigan have produced J.Tomkins, Mossop, Farrell and Tuson, before that batch there was Hansen and Hock and O'Loughlin, and I'm probably missing a couple. They have so many that they are now able to shift three international quality players to other positions, Tomkins to centre, and Mossop and Hock will probably move up front full time.

All this, and the younger players will not take up as significant a portion of the salary cap as a signing would, not least until they are much older, leaving space for other positions. We have produced Clough, Dixon, Ashurst and McGennis. I rate Clough, and I have hopes for McGennis, but besides having one of the best academies around I think we have struggled with the forwards with the exception of Graham and Clough a few years earlier. We have even resorted to playing a former scrum half in the back row lately, if he ends up being sacked I would hope we use his cap space on a good, young back rower.

You speak as if we have stopped producing players! This season we have promoted some new players to our squad, many of whom had their debuts but some didn't. Of the three that didn't, two were second rowers and one a prop. We're still producing. It was right to give Ashurst and Dixon a couple of seasons to show the club what they have to offer. Personally, I don't think either of them are up to the standard we need (jury still out on Magennis as he hasn't had as much game time as the other two). Personally, I'd like to see a couple of the newly promoted guys take their places now and again during the remainder of the season to see whether they offer us more.

How long will it be before Simmons realises Hohaia is a better fullback than stand off?

If you get this guy playing at fullback your side will be awesome next year

He's here to play at scrum half primarily but Simmons already knows him as a player and is fully aware of his utility value.

The problem with Saints is that they do not appear to know how to develop the youth!

Let me make my case before everyone jumps down my throat -with regards to Lomax, Foster, Gaskell etc. my opinion is that the youngster we have in the team have made a name for themselves in spite of there lack of development at the club, at the beginning of the season Foster was on the bench and only played 10 minutes if that at the end of the game he only started to get real game time due to injuries and due to the fact that we had no one else to replace him he had full game time. Due to this his game has come on leaps and bounds this year. The same with Lomax and Gaskell.

With our second rowers/loose we have plenty of cover and this is the most challenged position in the squad. Royce has the luxury of keeping his first choice players at those positions on the pitch longer and therefore the youngsters in those positions are player less minutes, for example Magennis played 25 minutes on Friday and Ashurst less than 20 minutes. The previous week they were 18th & 19th man and Dixon played at Bradford for around 30 minutes. Not only is this not developing those youngsters but it is also putting an extra burden on the senior players in those positions as along with playing in the exiles games they have to play longer than necessary at Saints.

Wigan have developed a more structured approach which seems to pay off. All the players that have been mention Mossop, Farrell, Tuson, J Tomkins all had loan spells or dual registration, Wigan also have a lot of youngster like Mellor, Crosby, Tomkins etc either on loan or dual registered this year. In the past year I can only remember Frodsham and Armstrong on loan or dual registered.

When you look at the benefit Scott Moore had playing at Huddersfield you can see that this short term investment can give you a long term gain. I though that Dixon looked a good prospect under Potter and, in my opinion this was down to game time and playing regularly but I seriously think that the current method of playing the three of them short minutes and rotation is detrimental to their development and they should be loaned out or dual registered. If they are on loan they can be recalled back so what would be the harm?

As far as number of games played Ashurst has played the most at 46, Dixon 30 and Magennis 17 which doesn’t really equate to 2 seasons with perhaps the exception of Ashurst but they are still only 20/21 years of age which was about the same age as Wilkin was when he broke into the team so I think it is a bit early yet to be writing them off.

Spot on.

Yes, we saw how well Armstrong was doing at Leigh with game time.
The like of Ashurst, Dixon and Magennis need to show they can perform without the likes of Graham and Roby holding their hands.

At least they might get a pass! I don't think that Graham and Roby do much hand holding.

I've said it on other threads but we need another back and a forward. Meli apart our backs just don't cause any problems at all, none of them look like making breaks unless they're put through gaps. We need a back who is going to scare teams. Hohaia is a good signing and he will bring that bit of spark, but we could do with somebody else especially if Pryce goes. Lomax is potentially a very good half or full back and we need to keep developing his game in the 1st team, ideally in a settled position. Our forwards will be weaker without Graham, that's obvious, and whilst I think Laffranchi is a good player, he's a back rower rather than prop, so I think we're a prop short and need to recruit in that area.

Do you think there's any chance of Leon staying?

i can't imagine all 3 getting extensions - flannery pryce & gards

flannery would be my choice to stay on for another 12, release other 2 as it may be too much of a risk with injury and what not.....

then sign another squad player

Flanders and Pryce might be worth keeping but I think that would mean the end of another second row (take your pick) especially as I think Scott Hale will be pushing for a spot next year (He looked strong and lively against a strong Shuddersfield pack). Keeping Pryce depends on what he comes out of this injury like and in all honesty we dont even know how his last injury will hold up either (neck). Assuming he gets back to full fitness I'd try and keep him because he is a class player who can play 1-7 and 13. Gardner for me isnt worth keeping, we have other options on the wing who will develop and be easier on the salary cap (for now)

Is this a serious post? If Hock plays like he can play then perhaps we can't match that but with the others you have to kidding me. Are you having a laugh? Is he having a laugh?

I think he is, yes.

We are light in terms of players this season. It looks like we're going to shed as many as 5 in terms of net movement again. Our squad can't cope with it. Need more players.

Why does it? I'm not surprised you're so depressive when you just make things up.

As it stands, there are two confirmed departures and two confirmed signings. In my world, that equates to a "net movement" of 0.
Now unless you are privvy to information that states we will not be signing any more players, and that all of the remaining players coming to the end of their contracts will not be re-signed, you are yet again spouting negative nonsense just for the sake of being negative.