I agree that his positioning is world class, it's had to be to cover his lack of pace. He's slowing down as every other player nearing their 30's has and will do, unfortunately for him though, his positioning is no longer enough.

Lomax won't be anywhere near Wellens now, and won't be for years. Wellens has been there and done it and has 10 years experience. Lomax has about 5 games. This is the reason I'd prefer to move Wellens whilst having Lomax at full back, he can pass on his knowledge. Wellens also appears to me to be one of those people that will turn into a decent coach if he wants to, he's had to work at his game.



Plenty of people have been saying that Wellens has been slowing down to the detriment of his game for at least 12 months. The World Cup was when it became [iobvious[/i.

Utterly ridiculous in an attempt to have a go at Potter.

The only way to stop embarrassing him by exposing his weaknesses is by removing him from the full back position

Indeed. Maybe Anderson would have had him playing full back differently?

Whatever Anderson did with him, I don't remember reading/hearing the whinges and moans about Wello's pace. Everyone knew he was slow, but this negative obsession with the poor guy certainly isn't something I remember being around.

the only place wello could go is back row, do you agree? I'd have wheeler at centre, pryce at 6, wello back row, lomax at fb.

That's because there wasn't to this extent, but that's what happens with a gradual degrading of physical performance, people don't notice it until it's obviously become a problem.

He's also a player who people will blame almost anything or anyone else for his errors as he's a local lad done good.

Anyway, everyone knows that all the tries we conceded last year were down to Meli.

I think you'll find I was concerned about his pace years ago and advocated giving Hardman a try.

Yup, bulk him up a bit and he'd be fine IMO. He's got good hands, can tackle, is a strong runner and has a good rugby brain.

I'd pick him before Flannery every time.

Not having speedy backs is a bit of a red-herring. What's CRUCIAL is having a dominant pack with five props (four of which need to be good), and a powerful back row.

Sure, you might get burned for the odd 90m try, but they're not all that likely if you are smashing them at the gain line.

Props mean pots. I can't put it any simpler than that.

Hardman would only ever have been a stop gap. His pace was akin to Wello's at the time.

He had the potential to be a solid fullback for a SL side, he reminded me very much of Wello in his play, but when a young lad is only equalling the ageing player he is being advocated to replace in terms of pace, it isn't going to end well.

But it hasn't been gradual has it, if we are to go by the hysteria over his pace. It's happened since the world cup. In fact, it happened suddenly, AT the world cup! He degraded at a mighty fast pace for someone so slow!

Wellens is not just a local lad done good. He is an excellent fullback and all his other gifts are well worth keeping him, regardless of his lack of pace, which needs to be managed properly. He'll be gone soon enough and I'm sure he would be more than glad to assist a local lad in learning the ropes if that is the way we are going to go with his position. But he is not ready yet to call it a day IMO. He just needs his confidence back.

At the time Hardman was a good youngster with a fair bit of potential. If he'd reached it I think he'd have been as good as - possibly better than Wellens. But he didn't (a bit like Danny Arnold), which means he's scoring tries for fun in the NL.

But the point is this: In the modern game (NRL) the fullback is the one person opponents struggle to deal with because he can inject himself into the line wherever he pleases. Whilst solid defence is essential, the FB is the most attacking player in the side. And if he's fast he's lethal.

flannery shouldn't be renewed for mine, solid etc, everything you dont want from a quota spot

It has though, I and a few others first noticed it against Wakefield at home last year. They scored a few tries where Wellens was just too slow to stop them, where as the year before he'd have been there and tackled the player. Some people will have seen it before then, some later. As I said before, the World Cup was when it became obvious that his lack of pace was becoming detrimental to his game.



He was an excellent full back. A definite club great (but not a game great). I've never advocated getting rid of him, just putting him in a position where his lack of pace isn't as exposed. I agree with what you say, but if he'd been an Aussie Saints fans wouldn't have got as defensive over him.

Same as Hooper was for me, but without the added benefit of a regular clattering of Lee Briers

by the time he left us hoopers shoulder was held together with sticky back plastic!

One example, great try that it was though. But he didn't go the length on his won did he? Still took two players to score. I did actually state 'when did one of our 3/4 last go the length of the field'. Or at least 70 metres even to score? Meli in the cup final aside.

You can cover his lack of pace up with two speedy wingers.....oops...... Then again......

Probably spot on. Yes he is solid, good tackler, dependable, but hardly scores, and is nothing out of the ordinary. If he was British it would be fine but it's at prop and centres/winger were we need an Aussie import, simply because that is where we lack quality in the UK game.

Agree with the above, but there is a practicle reason why Flannery is not needed and that is that we need another forward with the ability to break tackles. Flannery is not that type of player. Probably struggles playing in a side that plays 5 drives and a kick.

Wello is versatile enough to play ok in the back row. However he would be about 8th choice, behind specialised forwards who would do a much better job.

so would you release him? I'd keep him for his tackling and defence

Back on tpoic.

I think Potter did some great things at Catalans but I thought his comments about "slowing the game down" and "mysterious injuries" etc. towards the young players of Hudds was a bit below the belt...

Some really good discussion here. I agree that we have a problem with Wellens. In many ways, he's escaped too much scrutiny because the more pressing problem has been how to replace Long and Cunningham, as Eastmond remains a bit patchy, and Roby appears to need a long holiday to recharge, as he's a shadow of what he was.

However, I'm with Mugwump on the essentials. One of the reasons the likes of Roby is struggling, and Wellens isn't making the supporting breaks down the middle is that we simply don't have the props any more. Our successful years were built on having four very effective props : Anderson, Cayless, Graham, Fa'asavalu, Fozzard were all amongst the best props in the competition, and we always had at least three in the side at any one time. They provided the go-forward which allowed us to get away with lightweight back-rows and slow threequarters.

With decent props, the likes of Wilkin is making breaks through a retreating defensive line, Roby's scooting from dummy-half, and Gidley has a lot more space to work with. Compare that with tonight and Wilkin is running sideways trying to find space, Gidley gets a defender before he gets the ball, and Roby is dragged down by prepared markers. We have one class prop at present - Graham, and he's looking like he's been carrying the pack on his back for months. Clough, Hargreaves, Ashurst, Emmit all seem to come from the same factory which made Bennet - solid, medium-sized toilers. You can afford one in your pack for his tackling, but they're never props who will win you any silverware. Puletua doesn't look convincing at prop, despite his size. He was far more effective at the beginning of the season when we still had at least two decent props out there and he could run a bit wider.

The symptoms of our problem might be that our backs are starting to look ineffective, but the cause of those symptoms is the lack of decent props.