: Thu Mar 12, 2009 6:55 pm  

saints35 bulls0 wrote:

:lol:

I highly doubt it Mick.

That's a media soundbyte that. I think the rest of the interview tells us that he is very angry with the situation.

It's a farcicial situation and if Meli is not careful he could be on his way soon.

: Thu Mar 12, 2009 6:55 pm  

TheJudge wrote:

I also have it on good authority that nobody from te club has heard from him recently. What is going on? time for Saints to come clean

You must have a huge spoon

: Thu Mar 12, 2009 7:16 pm  

Carlos Alberto wrote:

They can play every match, but it wouldn't be wise.

Why is that? I mean, why isn't it a good idea for a young player to get as much first grade experience as possible? I don't understand why it isn't wise? (Genuine confusion here! Ignorance of coaching teenage lads in rugby league in undisguised evidence!)

: Thu Mar 12, 2009 7:20 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

Why is that? I mean, why isn't it a good idea for a young player to get as much first grade experience as possible? I don't understand why it isn't wise? (Genuine confusion here! Ignorance of coaching teenage lads in rugby league in undisguised evidence!)

They run the risk of burning out as their levels of fitness are not comparible to an experienced professional, they run the risk of injuries etc. It's always best with young players to drop them in and out rather than make them a permanent fixture. Look what's happened to Fielden.

: Thu Mar 12, 2009 7:23 pm  

Carlos Alberto wrote:

They run the risk of burning out as their levels of fitness are not comparible to an experienced professional, they run the risk of injuries etc. It's always best with young players to drop them in and out rather than make them a permanent fixture. Look what's happened to Fielden.

I'm not sure about fitness levels they could well be similar, but youngsters are still physically growing. It's wise to be careful with them.

: Thu Mar 12, 2009 7:41 pm  

Blobbynator wrote:

I'm not sure about fitness levels they could well be similar, but youngsters are still physically growing. It's wise to be careful with them.

Don't buy into this really.

If they are good enough, they are old enough and should be played.

Its been the way with every great player I can think of.

: Thu Mar 12, 2009 7:46 pm  

Stirlingshire Saint wrote:

Don't buy into this really.

If they are good enough, they are old enough and should be played.

Its been the way with every great player I can think of.

Look at Cunningham and the Legend Murphy

: Thu Mar 12, 2009 7:52 pm  

TheJudge wrote:

Look at Cunningham and the Legend Murphy

Murphy played consistently from 17 in a far more dangerous age of RL did he not?

Cunningham from what I recall was basically a first teamer every week from his debut?

I just think we should be hiding players due to their age. The Aussies don't do it and we are continuously praising these phenomenal talents playing for Australia at such a young age. We don't seem to grasp if these kids were British they'd still be playing A team rugby to 'protect' them. Its complete nonsense.

: Thu Mar 12, 2009 8:05 pm  

Stirlingshire Saint wrote:

Don't buy into this really.

If they are good enough, they are old enough and should be played.

Its been the way with every great player I can think of.

There are the odd freaks such as Burgess, Farrell and KC who are massive at the age of 17 and can physically cope. The game was alot different in the 60's to what it is now.

: Thu Mar 12, 2009 8:10 pm  

if we had a murphy,connolly or cunningham in our junior ranks i would say play them every week.but we havent.we have a good bunch of kids who will do our club proud over the years to come if we are sensible with them.
playing them every week and running the risk of burn out will do them no good at all.
murphys aren't born everyday,only once a generation,unfortunetly