Aboveusonlypie wrote:
The idea of this being policy of the club is nonsense. Every case has its' own merits. For example when Mossop returned he had an an offer to go to Leeds. He was an English international prop. He has suffered from injury but when fully fit is a good player as he proved last season at Salford. So he had a pretty good choice of clubs. He chose Wigan. I'm pretty sure that when Sam and Joel came on the market they could have gone to any Super League club of their choice too. IL would have been lynched if Sam had gone to Wire. Likewise with Joe Burgess.
In fact people are using 20/20 hindsight here. I recall no outcry when any of these players returned (though I for one, knew that Tommy would be no replacement for Matty Smith, and I was roundly shouted down)
The club weighs up what it has and decides whether in theory that player can improve the team. In this case is Sarginson a better option than Sa'u? I would say he is, others may disagree. He does have the benefit of being a big game player whilst Sa'u is unproven.
I mean, it is a bit of policy though isn't it? Ian Lenagan has all but stated it openly and says pretty much the same thing every time a good player leaves.
Sure, the club don't re-sign every player that is let go, but we've now brought back 5 players who have previously played for us during Lenagan's time in charge and every single one has been worse than when they left.
Also, none could really have been considered the most sensible choice when they were brought back either.
Mossop wasn't a sensible choice. He'd struggled for form for a few years while playing for us, left to go to the NRL, had no form at all to speak of, had injury troubles and was injured when we signed him. Take away the fact that he used to play for us and nobody would have wanted us to sign him!
Joel Tomkins wasn't a sensible choice. He'd struggled with injuries for a few years and was playing a different sport. He was injured when we signed him back and has struggled with injuries ever since. Was he the sensible choice? Of course not. There were countless good players knocking around in Super League and the NRL at the time who were better players then and continue to be better players now. Sure, maybe it's easy to say with the benefit of hindsight but we've seen players return from rugby union before and how many have come back just as good? Any at all? Why did the club think it could buck the trend? It made no sense other than the club could make a fuss about 'bringing someone home'.
Leuluai might have been doing okay for New Zealand Warriors (and no better than okay as he wasn't a stand out player) but he offered absolutely none of the positive attributes of the player he was replacing. We needed a quality halfback. It's debatable whether he's even a decent halfback. There's no way he was the sensible choice to replace Smith, so why did the club sign him? Quite clearly because he used to play for us.
Our other two returnees at least have a bit more sense to them. Sam might have been injured when we signed him (we've really got to question that logic in doing this) but fans would have been furious if he'd been allowed to go to another club. It was obvious that the club was going to re-sign him. Sure, he's been nothing like a marquee player so far but there's logic in this one. He was outstanding for us previously.
As for Burgess, he's still one of the best young prospects in the country and he was starting to find form in the NRL while at the Rabbitohs. He is yet another who left and has been nowhere near as good on his return but at least there's time for him to improve.
With Sarginson, he may well fall into the same category as Burgess, he's not been gone for long, he's still quite young and was decent for us. But you still have to question whether he's the best available. Maybe Gelling's (probable?) departure complicates things and we're left looking for a late replacement and there aren't many options available. But still, would we be interested if he hadn't played for us before? Is he that good? Maybe he is and will be a success. I hope so.
Either way, it's definitely a policy to bring players back if we're in the market for someone, even if we don't necessarily need them or they don't appear to be the smart option.
but I agree with you re every case has its own merits.
