www.sportinglife.com/rugby-leagu ... -for-place Decent read , personally for most games I wouldnt use a bench spot up with a guy who is likely to have very limited game time. I'd love to think he will prove a success covering 6 or 9 but given his lack of pace and mobility I seriously doubt it.

www.sportinglife.com/rugby-leagu ... -for-place Decent read , personally for most games I wouldnt use a bench spot up with a guy who is likely to have very limited game time. I'd love to think he will prove a success covering 6 or 9 but given his lack of pace and mobility I seriously doubt it.

It's a complete joke. Surely Wello can see how utterly terrible he is at any other position than fullback? He's turning into a joke and is destroying his legacy for me. Hogging a shirt he must know he's not deserving of and holding the club back.

If the club wanted to keep him as a player for his influence on the kids, he shouldn't be promoted above his level. If that level, which it is, happens to be fourth or fifth choice fullback, he shouldn't play unless there are no preferable options. This notion of him being a utility player is utterly stupid. He cannot contribute anything of note in any position.

He should have the pride in himself to acknowledge that, which is the most disappointing thing about this.

As i've said before...
Its a shame, he's given so much for our club. But as has been said countless times, there's no room for sentiment in competitive sports. He's not good enough for the starting 13, and the only bench spot he could fill would be our old friend of a "back on the bench" Harsh, but i think fair

I think that's fair.

Personally, I think wello is a body on the field who falls into the category of "won't win you the game, but probably won't lose it either"

In the case of an injury crisis, 6 and 9 are our shallowest positions, so having someone whose practiced those roles is better than moving 15 players across the pitch. I think it's very telling brown has wello practising at 6 instead of wheeler mind.

Those who .., aren't a fan, like to say he's not a game changer, which is true to an extent, but if he comes on in a game he seems to have a calming affect on some of the players who might be overexcited - which is very good in tight games (provided were already winning) - is it enough to get him into the squad week in week out? No. Is it in case the of a couple of players missing out? Sure.

He's still a player who should demand the uttermost respect for his services to the club.

I would only use him for cover. If he's on the bench every week, it means that a greenwood, a Savelio etc will miss out on game time.

Considering we'll be carrying Walmsley and Masoe too for the majority of games, that final bench spot is crucial.

Luke Walsh did say in an interview the other day that he'd been practising with Wheeler at 6 as well as Hohaia, so it sounds like a few options are being covered in training.

On Wello, if he gets in on performance then that's fair enough, but if it's just to be there, it will do us no good. You have to hope Brown is a pro as he has the final say on these things and no reason to pick a player for sentiment.

On the wider issue, competition for places always makes people up their game so no harm in throwing another body in a position as a threat to make people up their own game.

The coach may say one thing but be thinking another. But no harm in making players think that they are under threat.

This is my worry, he's put on the bench at the expense of a younger player who could do with the experience

There's only one reason that I can it worth running with Wello in the 17 and that would be if we had a lot of senior players missing and we were short of men (as opposed to kids).
He's not as good a fullback as Lomax and, by now, probably Swift and Makinson too. He can't defend effectively outwide, so can't play centre or half and he's not as big and strong as about 20 forwards we have on our books.

Unless we had a huge amount of injuries then he would be a complete waste of a shirt in the 17.

Anyone who suggests otherwise has their judgement massively clouded by sentimental nostalgia for the bloke.

He simply isn't good enough anymore.

I still think having him as a reserve FB if Lomax is injured is not a bad call. But that is different to being a back on the bench.

Even if Lomax gets injured, he still shouldn't play. He doesn't have the required skills to at at 1 anymore. A steady fullback who is good defensively will not win you trophies.

I'm not on about him being a fullback to win trophies, I'm talking a 2nd string FB. Just as I would not expect a stand in for Roby to win trophies.

A fair point but I suspect Swift and Makinson are more than capable of playing at 1 and excelling and we have Percival and Dawson to provide cover on the wings if needed. Short of an injury crisis I cant see a place for him in the team

Isn't that like saying if Lomax gets injured then we are automatically out of the running for a trophy? I'd like to think that isn't the case.

We could win trophies with wellens at fullback, but the trophy winning plays wouldn't come from him, more he'd fall into the "solid but did nothing spectacular" category (the mike bennett category if you will

) and we'd have to find inspiration from elsewhere (Walsh or roby.)

I dont think we could.
Its a shame but he's a shadow of the immense defender he once was

I disagree. In the modern game, an offensive full back who can commit or preferably beat a defender is essential. He can no longer do either.

And I think this is where the fundamental difference of opinion in saints fans come from. You can put anyone in the third receiver role (Sam tomkins was originally a halfback who was moved just to fill that role) in the attacking line keeping wello away from the creative roles (imo his ability to read the game means he'd still be able to run supporting lines it's just whether he'd be caught before getting it to the next supporting player) so re switching the 1 and 6 roles in attack again.

I just found out he's the 10th oldest man in super league now ... I remember his debut and it's making me feel old!

Haha yeah I remember too! Very depressing.

I think with our current problems at 6, and attacking no.1 is essential. If Lomax got injured and we went for Wellens with Hohaia at 6, we would have very little running threat.

We'd definitely have to go for the third man attack option. If I were coach, I'd have Walsh and Wilkin (he has better distribution than hohaia) as 1st and 2nd receiver Hohaia as the third man attacking the line, with jones outside him and wello inside him if/ when he inevitably gets smashed and can get the offload away. It would (probably) work for a couple of games at least but organisation is the absolute key to those plays coming off - which is why we'd need both roby and Walsh on to compensate for it (and it would weaken our right hand side attack as I imagine Wilkin will play as the pivot on that side).

All conjecture of course - just imo we'd still be competitive with 2 out of the three (lomax Walsh roby) lose 2 of them and we probably couldn't cope with wellens in the team for the big games.

I see what you're saying but I just think he has become a passenger now and slows things down to the point where he has a negative effect.

Anyway, as you say it's all conjecture and either one of us or neither will be proved right in the next 10 months.

I'd be intrigued to see the solution where neither of us were right



Well as a supporter all you can do is get behind whoever a on the pitch! I still think he's a club legend no matter what goes down this season (and we have been spoilt with those over the last couple of years!)

Reality is, until we sign a consistent back up for 6 and 9 I'd still rather he was around (I don't know if any of the kids in those positions are ready - I'd guess not given none of them were named in the squad)- let's be honest can he be any worse than Howarth???

Charnock has a squad number and he is a stand off.

And if we don't play Wellens at all then neither of us would be right about us winning a trophy or not with him in the side



But you're right, he is a legend and I've got huge respect for him. I just worry that his last couple of years will stay in people's minds as much as his glory years. Whereas Long, Cunningham and Scully all finished with Saints before performances dropped too much, Wellens hasn't done that. I genuinely believe that with every passing year that he carries on going, he is tarnishing his own legacy.

This is where the fallacy comes in imo - longs play did drop off, dramatically too - but we had let him go to hull so we never had that expectation. Sculthorpe retired early due to injurys so never really had a "twilight" of his career. Cunningham is the exception, but that's why he's the greatest club man to ever grace a rugby pitch

they also didn't go through the dramatic transformation of their own roles whilst playing like wello has.

Any way that's another argument for another day, competition for places is better than no competition for places :p