I'm not sure he does offer utility value, he's been poor when used at centre, when has he been used anywhere else?



As others have said, he's solid enough and does the small things well. I've not seen anything near the form from him in a Saints shirt that he would need to gain another SOO appearance though. The only thing he's shown over our youngsters has been experience.



Again as others have said, had he been British I'd have no hesitation in giving him a new contract.

Phuck! This is getting tedious now. For the last time - when Flannery was fit and got an extended run of games in the first team last season he was one of our best players. He tackled everything that moved. He hit the line on good angles. He was the primary go-to forward on kick throughs. He made few mistakes. He was invariably on for up to 60-70 mins. He weighed in with tries. And when he was asked to fill in in other positions he did so.



I'm only saying what a lot of people were IN HERE last year. I recall a conversation with McClennan past mid-season in which he said Flannery was really showing his worth.



Are you DENYING that such wasn't written or said? If the database hasn't culled the older threads I'm perfectly happy to write some SQL to retrieve them.



I am talking here about a FIT Flannery. Injured-dogged Flannery - sure, his form has been sketchy. But I expect such from any similarly afflicted player.



This thread is now boring me and almost certainly making me dumber. I still can't quite work out why I'm the guy who needs to provide "evidence" (presumably to fulfil some logical test to find absolute truth) when others are prepared to ship Flannery out on the strength of his high wages (even though they have no knowledge OF his wages) and use informal [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_manStraw Man[/url fallacies that begin by billing Flannery in Australia as something he is not and then claiming VICTORY in this debate because he isn't such. The level of double-think here has now reached toxicity. Until someone is prepared to extend this thread with reasoned, logically sound argument I can't be bothered any more.

Nobody hates Flannery, plenty think we can do better with the quota spot. It's very simple.

Duly Noted (a PostIt on my monitor). I'll make a point of reminding you of this the next time we have a slump in form and the usual suspects come slinking out to vent their bile.

Lovely. Do remember the distinction between hate and criticism when you do though, thanks very much.

We can? How do you know? Are you privvy to his wages? Can we get a better player to come over given the salary that hes on? What about Gidley? When fit hes been missing for nearly 2 years now. But then goldenboy is exempt from all critiscism.

Of course I'm not privvy to his wages (nor are you I'd expect), but I know the money SOO players can demand and I'm certain they're more than the likes of Mossop at Wigan and Westerman at Cas who are already doing more for their clubs than Flannery is for us IMO. Then there's the likes of Morrison at Wakey - I'm sure we could have picked him up for Flannery's wage when he left the Bulls.



I've got nothing against Flannery, he's a decent player, but I simply won't agree that he is the best we can do for a) the wage and b) the quota spot and I think that is why he gets some criticism. Although the criticism I see and hear is far more muted than some seem to be implying when compared to the true Saints scapegoats.

i'm still waiting for any evidence of any hatred in the first place...?

I wouldn't disagree with that comment. Maybe a little harsh but still true.



I am surprised that Wigan kept Bailey. I guess it was probably down to there being no better alterantive. But with guys like O'loughlin, Hanson, J Tompkins, Mossop (as well as Liam Farrell not being far off the first team) he could end up surplus to requirements in the near future.

So you think we should sign an average injury dogged player in one of our quota spots?

I'd bet he wouldnt be at wigan now if Hock had not been banned

Depends on the injuries. Are they acute, or chronic (long-term, perhaps even permanent - like Scully's leg, or Hanley's groin)? If we're only talking about acute injuries that the club's physician and/or surgeon expect will heal within three months at the most then - if I believed in the player - I would have no hesitation in re-signing him.



Chronic injuries present a major problem. Some decisions are pretty easy. Anyone with half a brain knew Newlove was finished after he snapped his Achilles. I know that injury is treatable. But I can't think of anyone who has returned from such without being less than the player he once was. Ditto Kevin Ward's compound fracture. Hanley's groin. Scully's hip/thigh. Then there are the hard choices - cruciate knee reconstructions (nine months out), a badly broken arm , shoulder dislocations - these injuries kind of hover in and out of career-destroying like Schrödinger's cat. ATEOTD, you've got to take the best medical advice possible, consider the worth of the player to the team and trust your instincts. It's a risky business that can leave you badly burned when you make the wrong decision. Tommy Martyn was written off after his second cruciate reconstruction and came back to play some of the best rugby ever seen at Knowsley Road. Nick Fozzard wasn't given a prayer after he smashed his arm to pieces at Huddersfield and then on two subsequent returns it broke again. He was on the scrapheap when Warrington took a wild punt on him and it paid off. Think of Steven Gerrard's interminable series of leg injuries between the ages of 20 and 23. Liverpool could quite easily have given up on him and they'd have made the mother of all mistakes.



I used to believe that there was such a thing as an 'injury prone' player but I don't any more. You get injured being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It's plain old bad luck and Flannery has had more than his fair share of it. They've robbed him of confidence and it shows when he's thrown back into the side and expected to play at his peak as if nothing's happened. When he's got games under his belt and his confidence is high he is a very good back row forward who has attributes that only Wilkin can really match. For all we know from now on he might play without injury for the rest of his career.



Unlike other members of this site I have absolutely no knowledge of his wage. The reasoning that he's on a fortune BECAUSE he was a regular SOO player is faulty. At the time he arrived the £ was still strong against the Aussie dollar so there's a strong possibility he is on a relatively modest wage (a fortune in Australia back then, but less so now - a factor that could well take the decision out of the club's hands anyway). Jamie Lyon - who was regarded as one of the ELITE players in the NRL certainly wasn't on a King's ransom.



Yes, there are some talented kids coming through - Ashurt, Magennis and the like, but all (especially Magennis, who hasn't got 500 minutes of game time under his belt) have yet to prove that they will PAY their promise. I've lost count of the number of "next big things" at Saints who've bombed for one reason or another. There is a VERY real possibility that NONE of these kids will make the grade. If that happens and we get rid of Flannery, and Puletua retires we could be left in phucktown.



So it's a tough call. One which could have major consequences (positive or negative). I'd err on the side of caution, but I'm not the one making the decisions.

You'd Imagine Flannery is on a similar wage to Hooper (whatever that was), as he was brought in as a direct replacement.



His wage doesn't concern me. a). I don't think he'll be on top dollar like Wellens, Gidley and Graham and b). his workrate and ability to play a number of positions offers good value to the squad.



I think another problem with Flannery, more than anything, is the expectation he arrived with. People expected him to be a world beater on the basis he'd played SOO. He's a good line runner and a good defender, who was classed as a 'utility' man in the NRL. He was never a star man, like Jamie Lyon or Matt Gidley was.

I don't think anyone really expected him to be a star in the mould of Lyon or Gidley, but I know I expected him to be more dominant in the team than he has been.



Of course it could be that the Aussies over hype SOO...

Wash your mouth out boy!

And that is PRECISELY the description knowledgeable Aussies speccies gave of him when he signed.

Bailey is only on a one year deal so I would expect him to go at the end of the season. We are very well off for good young backrow forwards.

I don't particularly rate Bailey that highly but he is necessary at Wigoon where they've struggled for on the field leadership since Farrell left. A guy of his experience should be able to help calm and lift the younger members of the team when it's needed.

I've never heard anyone say they hate flannery. I think most agree he just not good enough. Fair enough he works hard but he offers nothing with ball in hand.



IMO he should not be given a new contract.

I fail to see why you'd pick a utility man for SOO. Clearly a squad needs utility men but why pick him for a one off game when you've got the pick of the best in the world?

You mean it could really be SOA (State of Average)?

[size=200S[/sizeort [size=200O[/sizef [size=200O[/sizerdinary-ish?

Agreed, I think that the same can be said about Deacon in the halves. An old head to help the younger players like Tomkins and Mellor. Similar to having an experience backup quarter back in the NFL or goalkeeper in football.

Careful Noel, spelling Tomkins name like that you will have the pies complaining. They can't / won't have anybody spelling his name wrong.

Hopefully none of them spotted it