So you agree with my initial point that long has been prone to injuries throughout his career and that last season (2010) was worse than most years (co-incidentally also as he's got older).

Your comment on eastmond and briscoe is irrelevant given their age, particularly briscoe who hardly missed any games last season

I think he's been unfortunate in his career to pick up several longer-term injuries, i.e. breaks etc. Whether that's linked to him being a marked man for late/cheap shots due to his influence on games could be relevant, too. Last year was worse, yes, but the previous 2 were amongst the best of his career, so at the time we signed him he was playing pretty much as many games as he ever has.

Why isn't it relevant? Why are older players considered more injury prone if they are picking up similar injuries to younger ones? IMO, it's the niggly injuries such as muscular/ligament etc. related problems, and the frequency that are bigger signs of the years catching up with players.

So at least we can agree that he is injury prone



Neither eastmond or briscoe have been playing the game long enough to have any sort of track record on injuries. Briscoe only missed 3 or 4 games mid season due to injury IIRC, so your point is irrelevant as I said.

After this season, I would probably be inclined to agree with you. My point is about the time we signed him, at which stage I was less inclined to think that. He'd had a few breaks, etc, which could happen to anyone, and missed not many more games than most in a very physical sport.



Briscoe missed 15 games. It's nothing to do with track record either. The point (which you seem to want to miss because it doesn't fit with what you want to be the case), is that any player, regardless of age, can suffer broken bones/dislocations, etc. I could also point to Whiting and Yeaman as examples. The number of absences have been more down to the seriousness of the injuries rather than the frequency.

What you seem to miss is that you acknowledge that long has missed around 1/3rd of games pretty much each season over a 13 year career, which makes him pretty injury prone to me. His resistance to these injuries seems to be getting worse given that last season he had 3 seperate injuries. What the injuries are is irrelevant, it's the fact he gets them regularly that makes him prone to injury.

If in 10 years time briscoe has missed chunks of most of the intervening seasons due to injury then I'll agree he's prone to injury. I wouldn't say that 2 major injuries in 2 seasons makes him prone to injurry but he may well turn out to be. Incidentally, last season he played 25 league games so I'm not sure where you get the 15 missed ones from

Actually more around a fifth to a quarter I'd say, but besides the point. And I can't agree that the type of injury is irrelevant. I don't see how someone is prone to having their bones broken or joints dislocated, unless they've got a strange penchant for insulting the scary bloke in the corner of the pub.



I was talking about Briscoe having had a big ankle injury already in his career, the 2009 one. He was out for 15 games. And that was the 2nd ankle problem he's had following the one from the 2008 CC final.

I'm not saying the Long signing has worked out ideally, I'm saying that from the evidence available at the time we signed him, only getting 14 games out of him wasn't to be expected and injury prone would have been a harsh assessment IMO. To me, injury prone is someone who seldom has a long run of games in the team. That's not really been the case for most of Long's career, he's just had significant layoffs when he has had injuries.

So if a player breaks a bone every year then they're not injury prone, but if they knack their ankle or knee ligaments then they are?

long's body wasn't up to playing most games in a season. saints knew that or they'd have offered him the 2 years he wanted

It's constant rubbish.

Who should we have signed?

Precisely, who else was available?

Saints knew Long was going to break his elbow apparently

You should have a word with your source at saints and tell them they were almost right with their prediction then

I'm not saying long wasn't worth the gamble, but given the likely number of games we were going to get out of him then we needed better back up options than we had. That was the real issue

Now that's something most of us agree with.

Unless they have an actual condition making their bones/ligaments weak (which I can't see it being possible to play rugby league with), or it's continually the same bone/ligament, then no, I can't see how someone can be prone to such injuries.



Nicely ignoring the Saints club policy on 30-year-olds that has not been broken for anyone, even their incumbent messiah Keiron Cunningham, well played.

Saints seem to have changed that policy though. Francis Meli (31) and Paul Wellens (30) have both been given two-year contracts and maybe it's a sign of the times in that they'd like to replace them but can't because of a lack of quality. I think if they could have found younger, better replacements they'd probably have only offered both players one year, instead of two. If they didn't have Eastmond on board as a ready-made replacement, would they maybe have given Sean Long the two-year deal he wanted? Just a thought really...

I think you have a different definition of injury prone to me. I see someone who is injury prone as someone who regularly picks up injuries. Now this may be due to an inherent physical weakness, being targeted by the opposition, or just the kind of player who puts themselves in the thick of things and suffers injuries as a result. It seems your definition is a player who constantly suffers similar injuries. I don't see that the specific injury makes any difference to the definition of "injury prone". Whether it's a broken leg or a ruptured knee ligament it's still an injury.




I'd have said I'd played a blinder given that they've recently given 2 30+ year olds 2 year contracts which kind of blows your argument out of the water

If saints felt they would have got good value out of long for 2 years they'd have kept him and accomodated him, pryce and eastmond in the team.

Then we'll have agree to disagree. Some players do just have bad luck sometimes.



That shows a change in policy since Long left, not necessarily that they didn't think Long wasn't good enough value. The fact that Meli has a similar track record to Long points to St Helens changing their stance on the basis of the player market, not the players in question, IMO.

Indeed, but if that "sometimes" happens regularly enough it starts to look like it isn't bad luck (which assumes that "luck" exists)



So they only changed their policy after long left? Very convenient for your argument

But true nevertheless. All 30+ year-olds last year got offered no more than a year, as did Flannery this year.

My guess is the dearth of good fed trained fullbacks and wingers is what's forced their hand.

My guess is that they thought that they wouldn't get many games out of long but we'll never know who is right will we?