Re: The prop problem : Tue Jun 18, 2019 2:14 pm  

sergeant pepper wrote:

Simple question - does the club have an issue when it comes to developing, identifying and getting the best out of props?

Development - Sutton, Crosby, Prescott, Mossop, O'Carroll all produced by the club, with only Sutton potentially on the cusp of doing anything of note. Who was the last great prop we produced - possibly Andy Faz, but it would be a stretch to call him a prop? Think about other players we've produced in that time like Tomkins X2, Faz, Gildart, Burgess, Manfredi, HH, Ashton, Williams, Mcilorum etc.

Identifying - Bullock, TT and Clubb all started life at either wing or centre and, whilst I'll give Bullock more time, we do seem to keep going back to the same formula that hasn't produced great results. Chris Hill was missed/not picked up by the scouts and you hear stories about us not moving for Walmsley because of his lack of lateral movement. Add in Taylor who had the heart or a pea / no desire to be the best and you've got a sorry tale of picking the wrong guys.

Performance - Lima, FPN and Pettybourne came over with decent reps and whilst the first two weren't as bad as people make out, they didn't exactly set the league on fire. It's taken a move to the NRL for Sutton to be the player we know he can be too. When was the last time we saw a dominant prop performance? Lima in the CC final (I know I said he didn't rip up any trees) or Coley n the WCC?

People will point to Flower and he's been great, but that's one guy vs more than a handful who haven't been great.

Great post, but I think we've been unlucky with some. Taylor's a good example, desire looks like it's the thing which has stopped him from being the monster he could've been, but there's only so much you can point the finger at Wigan for there. I'd put Dudson, Sutton, Mossop, Prescott and Hamlin in the 'unlucky bracket' too for different reasons. Dudson and Sutton, very promising youngsters, one who never quite had the right temperament/application, the other left just as he was maturing. Mossop could have easily become a really impressive big-minutes prop if injuries didn't turn him into a shadow of the player he could've been. Prescott was never going to be top level, but would walk into the current team and had his career curtailed by injury. Hamlin is obvious, but looked like he could've been a monster.

Think there's also something to be said for our strategy of trying to sign props who are more athletic, can put the big minutes in and make up in defence/stamina what they lack in eating up meters. I actually don't mind this so much, seeing as we won so many finals off the back of it, but it does mean that:

1. When the props lose their athleticism, it stands out like a sore thumb, see Clubb
2. You still need the backs to make up meters. Not so easy if Richards of this world are being swapped for the Marshalls
3. If you suddenly want to change the style, you suddenly have a set of props that aren't well suited to the traditional way of playing the position.

Not saying that this approach would have been everyone's cup of tea, but it would explain why we passed on Warmsley when he was younger when it looked like he probably wasn't going to be a great defender/big minutes prop.

Re: The prop problem : Tue Jun 18, 2019 2:27 pm  

I thought Ben Austin was alright for the academy but he was binned off. Whoever is in charge at the club hasn’t the foggiest about props, that’s for sure. They must think if you’re big then you’ll do or go for impact props all the time, that’s why we haven’t signed a propper prop in god knows how long.

Re: The prop problem : Tue Jun 18, 2019 2:47 pm  

To answer the 2nd post down I'd say Shaun Wane. Wasn't very old when he won MOM against Manly.

It's just a shame he came through at a time we had spent on Platt & Skerrett.

It's a position we have struggled with over the decades. However at any given time if our lads coming through aren't good enough we should be scouring the planet for those that are.

Re: The prop problem : Tue Jun 18, 2019 3:01 pm  

The last good young props are Nelson Asafa-Solomona and Luke Thompson who are 23 and 24 respectively, young for a prop but not for a player. The last good young prop was probably Sam Burgess.

Re: The prop problem : Tue Jun 18, 2019 7:30 pm  

We tend to produce small forwards generally. Those who come through at prop usually struggle to make meters when they step up and are offloaded. We get very few big and athletic players. Look at Partington, Smithies, Barnes, Paisley, Shelford, Lever and so on, they are all around the same size and weight but Smithies has the advantage of not being a prop. If you ever get to look at an Aussie schoolboy touring team over here they are often huge compared to us as well as being athletic. When we produce big lads like Bretherton and now Kibula and Byrne if they are not ripping up trees at 19 then we ship them out because they cost too much to develop.

Re: The prop problem : Tue Jun 18, 2019 7:42 pm  

3 of our current props used to be wingers. Also one who was a loose forward.

Re: The prop problem : Tue Jun 18, 2019 8:26 pm  

The fate of 19 year old props may change and improve from next year as they will play in the reserves. This could do younger promising props more good than any other position.
Overall I think the reserves will improve SL massively given time.

Re: The prop problem : Tue Jun 18, 2019 11:29 pm  

JonnyBroad wrote:

3 of our current props used to be wingers. Also one who was a loose forward.

Brian McTigue was a centre at first .

Re: The prop problem : Wed Jun 19, 2019 10:32 am  

sergeant pepper wrote:

Simple question - does the club have an issue when it comes to developing, identifying and getting the best out of props?

Development - Sutton, Crosby, Prescott, Mossop, O'Carroll all produced by the club, with only Sutton potentially on the cusp of doing anything of note. Who was the last great prop we produced - possibly Andy Faz, but it would be a stretch to call him a prop? Think about other players we've produced in that time like Tomkins X2, Faz, Gildart, Burgess, Manfredi, HH, Ashton, Williams, Mcilorum etc.

Identifying - Bullock, TT and Clubb all started life at either wing or centre and, whilst I'll give Bullock more time, we do seem to keep going back to the same formula that hasn't produced great results. Chris Hill was missed/not picked up by the scouts and you hear stories about us not moving for Walmsley because of his lack of lateral movement. Add in Taylor who had the heart or a pea / no desire to be the best and you've got a sorry tale of picking the wrong guys.

Performance - Lima, FPN and Pettybourne came over with decent reps and whilst the first two weren't as bad as people make out, they didn't exactly set the league on fire. It's taken a move to the NRL for Sutton to be the player we know he can be too. When was the last time we saw a dominant prop performance? Lima in the CC final (I know I said he didn't rip up any trees) or Coley n the WCC?

People will point to Flower and he's been great, but that's one guy vs more than a handful who haven't been great.

I think it's a good question. I don't think there's a team that produces top quality props on a regular basis (i.e. every 2 or 3 years). At most clubs their best props are signed rather than homegrown.

Sutton is quality and probably the best prop we've produced in a long time. Mossop was also nowhere near as bad as he was made out to be. He was one of the best young props around but unfortunately injuries really took their toll. He's not a bad prop these days, although a little short of the standard he probably could have achieved.

I always thought Paul Prescott was the unluckiest of our homegrown props in the last couple of decades. He had so many injuries throughout his career but actually had the ability to reach a very high level. He had outstanding defence, could make strong carries, had a good offload and he was one of the best at putting in short passes to put players through gaps. The problem was all of those good qualities appeared bit by bit in between frequent injury layoffs. When he finally started putting all of those qualities together (and reached the age where he should have hit his prime) he had to retire.

One of the issues in recent years could be the way that Wane liked the props to play. A low number of carries during a game was presumably the trade off for much quicker line speed in defence. He also liked players going to ground as soon as possible to enable a quick play the ball. That suits some props but not all. Defence was always the most important aspect for any prop forward under Wane. That's why Scott Taylor was frequently left out early on, as was Romain Navarrete. If Wane was still here I don't think Joe Bullock would have played so many games and certainly wouldn't be considered the key player that he currently seems to be. Not a lot of our props were able to stand out statistically, or have their names mentioned frequently during televised games so they don't get noticed as much.

In terms of developing props, looking at other clubs (academy produced players in bold):

Castleford: Watts, Millington, Sene-Lefao, Moors, Massey, Clark
Catalans: Moa, Casty, Bousquet, Simon, Kasiano
Huddersfield: Clough, Matagi, Ta'ai, English, Ikahihifo, Walne
Hull: Taylor, Bowden, Green, Matongo, Paea
Rovers: Mulhern, Masoe, Garbutt, Scruton, Lannon
Leeds: Cuthbertson, Singleton, Crosby, Peteru, Oledzki, Albert, Seumanufagai
London: Battye, Ioane, Richards, Mason, Yates, Krasniqi
Salford: Mossop, Dudson, Griffin, Walker, Burke, Nakabuwai
Saints: Walmsley, Thompson, Douglas, Lees, Amor, LMS
Wakefield: Fifita, England, Kopczak, Arona, Huby, Hirst, Pauli
Wire: Hill, Cooper, Tasi, Akauola, Clark
Wigan: Clubb, Flower, Navarrete, Tautai, Bullock (Can't really be counted), Partington, Byrne

There isn't really any club that relies heavily on academy produced players in their front row except for Hull FC. Looking at that the conclusion I'd draw is that when it comes to props recruitment is the most important thing.

I'd guess that the reason for so few top class home grown props at many clubs is the fact that they don't develop properly until mid to late 20's and sometimes they just don't see the point in keeping hold of a player who isn't good enough until that happens. If you've got a prop who is 21 and decent but hasn't quite developed is it worth keeping hold of them for another 4 years until they develop into a top player, or is it best to let them go and sign someone who might offer more immediately?

I think over the last 6 or 7 years we've signed props who mostly fit Shaun Wane's style, along with some duds (Lauaki, Andy-Bloody-Powell!). Signed props to play the Shaun Wane way was probably a little easier. They need to be tenacious defenders and to some extent their attacking ability and strong carries was almost a minor concern. If we're going to be playing a more traditional style of rugby and make greater use of the front row I think we need to start signing the best props from other clubs. I'm not sure the 'projects' that we used to sign will be as effective. In my opinion it's easier to coach a player to defend better and improve their line speed than it is to get them to run hard and effectively enough to be considered one of the best props in the competition.

Re: The prop problem : Wed Jun 19, 2019 11:41 am  

Cherry.Pie wrote:

snip...

Great response!

I'd completely forgotten about Powell and Lauaki, both definitely fall into the category of 'what were we thinking'. When you look at some of the prop signings other teams have made since 2010 it doesn't look good on the club when we signed guys like this.

It is really interesting how many props move onto to other sides and then a couple of years they'd probably be starters for the team they left. Does this happen in the NRL as much or does their feeder system negate the need to move clubs?

Maybe I'm old school, but I love seeing a top class prop. If I could pick any SL player from the last 10 years that I wished we had signed then it would be Peacock. It seems like decades since I've seen prop in a Wigan shirt that was that dominant.