Re: Michael Shenton : Wed Jun 16, 2010 7:40 pm  

You've signed him, he said in the hotel function after the England game that he had signed for Saints because the drinking culture at Cas is a joke and nobody takes Matterson seriously, when he tells them something they just laugh.

Re: Michael Shenton : Wed Jun 16, 2010 7:58 pm  

At the beginning of the season I though it was vital we retained Shenton. However, his form this year has been poor and if the rumours of his outragous wage demands have substance then he can go.

Re: Michael Shenton : Wed Jun 16, 2010 8:51 pm  

He has alot to work on but I reckon he'll be a hit at Saints. I think Bridge and Atkins are both better centres though.

Re: Michael Shenton : Wed Jun 16, 2010 9:25 pm  

shenton is a defencive centre and no more,the very fact that we have barely used him has a strike centre over the past 5-6 seasons means their must be very little confidence in his attacking play.

im not saying this because he is leaving us but for me shenton has never quite lived up to his promise and he`s not what id consider a international centre more a case of we are very poor in this position and he`s one of the best of a very mediocre bunch of british centres.

even looking back to last night the best attacking centre was a un-tried 18 year old in joe arundel.maybe st helens can get more out of him but even in his 5-6 international games he`s played he hasnt broken any pots and three of those games were against france.

will cas miss him ? maybe but the reported wages he`s demanding he`s certainly not worth it he couldnt lace richie blackmore`s boots and he`s not on the same planet of gidley or lyon.

Re: Michael Shenton : Wed Jun 16, 2010 9:36 pm  

However, often teams play with a 'devensive' centre on one side and an 'attacking' centre on the other and channel their play down the more attacking side in the knowledge that the 'defensive' centre can nullify the threat of the other team's 'attacking' centre!
However, as the previous poster has pointed out, he is nowhere near 'world class'.

Re: Michael Shenton : Thu Jun 17, 2010 7:24 am  

braytontiger wrote:

shenton is a defencive centre and no more,the very fact that we have barely used him has a strike centre over the past 5-6 seasons means their must be very little confidence in his attacking play.

but he scored 16 tries last season?

Re: Michael Shenton : Thu Jun 17, 2010 7:31 am  

Wire_74 wrote:

He has alot to work on but I reckon he'll be a hit at Saints. I think Bridge and Atkins are both better centres though.

Bridge is, Atkins isn't IMO.

Re: Michael Shenton : Thu Jun 17, 2010 7:57 am  

Bridge is a very decent player, always thought so myself.

Atkins i dont rate, especially in defence.

As for Shenton, he's not world class, he looks a big fish in a small pond at Castleford, if he did come to Saints, it would be interesting to see what wage he was on, as i dont think his ability would command a high salary, however, something tells me he wont come cheap.

Re: Michael Shenton : Thu Jun 17, 2010 8:01 am  

OoOGazOoO wrote:

Bridge is a very decent player, always thought so myself.

Atkins i dont rate, especially in defence.

As for Shenton, he's not world class, he looks a big fish in a small pond at Castleford, if he did come to Saints, it would be interesting to see what wage he was on, as i dont think his ability would command a high salary, however, something tells me he wont come cheap.

He's a better player than Gleeson was when we signed him IMO.

Re: Michael Shenton : Thu Jun 17, 2010 8:27 am  

OoOGazOoO wrote:

Bridge is a very decent player, always thought so myself.

Atkins i dont rate, especially in defence.

I've been a big fan of Bridge whenever I've ssen him play centre, he seems to be able to make that run to threaten the outside of his marker and has a good step to come back on.

I think I'm a bit negetive on Atkins, I've seen him be pretty gash a couple of time in positional defence and it totally skews my opinion of him.