Seen our accounts have we?

Don't need to.

So you just happen know the amount our players are on?

Certain players, yes.

I couldn't give a flying one whether you choose to believe me or not, makes no difference to me. I know it's true which is all that matters.

Well I'm TELLING you that Monas and King aren't on much more than 250k between them.

Well you'd be wrong.

I have to go with lefty on this Ash, your contacts are incorrect on this occasion.

Some would be suprised to know but Gleeson wasnt on anywhere near as much as many believed. King and monaghan dont touch the 200 barrier, especially with this image rights thing, but thats another issue.
A few years ago our squad was built on overpaid average players past their best, not anymore.
Another thing to consider is the age of our squad, as players get older, johnson, morley, briers, rauhihi etc they command much less.

Re: the game, Hull were never in it imo, you hardly got out of your half. Plenty of effort but you were dominated in the forwards and looked pretty predictable. Seemed to be one or two 'stars' off a decent team again.
Berrigan was v. good and yeaman was your only attacking back that looked dangerous imo.
G. Horne is no way near good enough imo

Officially perhaps.

and Fielden is the highest paid player in SL! Beggars belief at times

Have to disagree there Mrs B we couldn't get out of own half for most of the game. I agree the effort was there but we lost the forward battle and didn't have the tactical guile to overcome it.

And have done so regularly for 2 seasons in my view. Let's look at it another way. Instead of discussing whether we matched the opposition pack, can anyone remember the last time our pack ran over the top of the oppositions' and caused havoc ? Pack and halves should be our priority and we have started to address this but more quality is needed.

The 2005 season reckon.

Yet it took you 40 minutes to score.


I agree we were never going to win the game but to say we were never in it when the scores were level at half time is a bit silly.

2006's pack did a good job and 2007's wasn't too bad either when it had a half to guide them around.

Our pack of 2005 was one of the best in SL. Since then it has steadily gone backwards to the point where now, our pack of 2008 and 2009 is one of, if not the, worst packs in SL.

Not big enough, not aggressive enough, offers zero go-forward and still contains the likes of Radford, King, Thackray, Dowes. This is the main reason that we have quickly become a bottom four side from being in a position of strength not so long ago.

Which, TBF, wasn't the question.

The last pack we had that really dominated the opposition was in 2005 IMO. No coincidence that it contained one Stephen Kearney methinks.

Radford is the only one of those who wasn't in the 2005 pack.

The main difference between our pack now/last year and the pack of 05/06/07 is the lack of Carvell. Stick him in our pack now and it'd be a very different proposition.

Another difference between how it is performing now and how it was is that lack of direction from the halves. Cooke and Head both did this well. Dykes did too when he played. We don't have anyone to do that job currently though.



For 'did a good job' read 'dominated the opposition' regularly. Obviously only once Kear had gone and Sharp came in and changed the attacking structure.

And 2005's did struggle for large amounts of the league campaign, most notably when Swain was out. This was a pack, let's not forget, that contained Dowes, McNicholas, G Horne, Higgins and, on occasion, Hill, Bailey and Last, none of whom would really be considered more than 'average' and all of whom would be players most on here would want releasing if they were still here (as a couple are). It also contained King and Thackray, both players who are still here, both players who have done a decent job this year and both players who most seem to want rid of.

The majority is not a lot different to the pack that was considered one of the best in the league, it's just the one or two additions that elevate it. Crocker and Lauaki, for example.

The 2005 pack had kearney, carvell, mcmenemy (much underrated but better than any 2nd rower currently at the club), plus king and thackery were much better then. It also had swain leading them around the field and tackling anything that moved. The current pack is miles away from what we had then

The performances are miles away, obviously, but the quality and ability of the members of the park aren't. The differences in that respect are that then we had Carvell and Kearney. The intention was for us to have Crocker and Lauaki in, like for like replacements (fairly like for like, anyway), giving us a pretty similar pack overall. It's beyond the club's control (you would assume) that they haven't been part of the pack, though.

Agreed.

dowes 2005 > dowes 2009
king 2005 > king 2009
thackery 2005 > thackery 2009
swain > berrigan/houghton/lee
mcmenemy > tickle
chester > radford
kearney > manu
carvel > cusack

lauaiki and crocker wouldn't have improved this pack enough to make it the equal of the 2005 one

Did you read my post? Because, if you did, I'm not sure why you've written what you have.

Anyway, to go down your route, but making it relevant to what I wrote:

Dowes = Dowes
King = King
Thackray = Thackray
Carvell > Cusack
Swain ≈ Berrigan
McMenemy ≈ Tickle
Kearney > Radford
Chester < Manu

Put Crocker in for Radford and that position is roughly equal. Put Lauaki in for King (with Cusack staying in and him being a better play that the King of 2005) and he's not far off Carvell (assuming he plays as he has in the NRL). As I said, add those two signings and it's not far off the pack of 2005. And that's without people like Burnett and Washbrook, who should both be in our first choice 17 (13?) and would be improvements.