The Atkins/Burrell "experiment" is symptomatic of our poor recruitment of the last decade

I don’t think that is a fair criticism. He was an experiment that had no impact on the salary cap. Showed the club are constantly looking at ways to improve. It didn’t work out, move on.
In relation to Atkins it was time to move him on, much as he was a great player for the club. That was one of those “damned if they do, damned if they don’t “ decisions.
If you want to cite a signing that better suits your theory that prop from the NRL, can’t remember his name that we signed for this season would be much better (I can remember his name but trying to make a point!)

To quote two old phrases

Atkins ....Why fix what's not broken. He was still a good player, scoring tries

Burrell. You can't teach on old dog brand new tricks

There was nothing wrong with Atkins. Replacing him with an aging Union player was folly. This was a Price's vanity experiment, a la Smith's with Ryan Bailey....."I can rebuild him"

Do we think that our Roy was symptomatic of poor recruitment?

Now before anyone starts to spit their coffee out in disbelief I'm not so sure that he was as far as the club is concerned. He played for Souths was capped and captained NZ I think we as fans were fairly happy with this signing at the time and yes I get that the club should be a bit more diligent with their recruitment policy.

The first warning signs was his MIA antics for Samoa as far as I can remember. Following that the lack effort knew no bounds, his application and honesty from a performance per £ POV (you wouldn't have paid him in buttons) sets him apart and lays the blame at his door more so than the clubs....and taking the two in his last game to sign off and grinning like a Cheshire cat was the icing on the cake mickey take.

I don't think the Burrell signing was anything to do with Price, Simon Moran had been speaking to him about a move before Price arrived.

So, Oasis' concert promoter's preferences trump a RL coach's.
If that's the case, our recruitment REALLY IS ####ed

I don’t know where the idea came from that he was to replace Atkins. We bought a lottery ticket. What has Atkins done since leaving? He was never going to be offered the sort of deal he would’ve wanted, ie one more season at most.

Atkins was invited to leave, when we'd already signed Burrell. Price (I assume, more than likely) had Gelling in the pipeline. Both Burrell and Gelling have not worked out well, have they.

Again, our recruitment (on the whole) stinks

Were -4 with Skybet, which is interesting.

I honestly think we should / could have kept Atkins for another year or maybe two.
Burrell is / was a similar age and had no real RL experience.
I appreciate it was maybe an experiment and that his salary doesn't count on the cap, but it does appear to be wasted money nevertheless - either because he's not up to it or because he's not been given the chance. (If he'd have been 25 then that could have been a different story, but then again we probably wouldn't have got him at 25).

With one or two exceptions our recruitment over the last decade hasn't been up to the standards of many other clubs - or maybe it's that the coaching staff have not been able to bring out the best/develop them. Compare our recruitment and development with that of Powell or Watson to name but two.
Clearly there are some exceptions - Hill, Ratch (although a sizable fee was involved for him I think), Hicks (already established in Oz), Coops and Philbin (developed from the academy).

I think Atkins was a very good centre for Wire but I think the key thing here has to be his injuries towards the end of his career. Not sure recruitment of Burrell has anything at all to do with the decision to move Atkins on.
re. Recruitment: Grass often seems greener elsewhere.

Compare our finals and trophies over the same time periods with Powell and watson

Not denying we've been more successful but on the recruitment front and 'bang for the buck' I think we'd be challenged.

You just know when you see a player for a few games wether he’s going to make it and Burrell wasn’t one of them.Another very bad signing.

On the left is my guess as to the team we would have seen, with the replacements due to the dreaded Covid on the right. It would mean three debuts and a fair bit of shuffling around so I don't think we can really expect more than a hard earned defeat unfortunately. Still, it will give the younger players valuable game time and we can at least get an idea of whether they are capable of making the jump to SL standard.



Ratchford
Charnley
Gelling
King ( Mamo)
Lineham
Austin
Widdop
Hill (Latu)
Clark (Walker)
Cooper
Hughes. (King)
Currie
Clark (Clark D)

Philbin (Johnson)
Akaoula. (Robson)
Davis (Wrench)
Ashton (Longstaff)

Patton may play 9?

Yes, good spot, that may well be the better option.

Ashton to full back & Ratchford no.9.

For a handful of games Luther managed to put himself in the right place at the right time for a couple of tries. Toby only managed to score his first try of the season last week. ,but of the two, King is definitely more creative. Burrell has so far come across as a supporting player but is that all he was allowed to be ,have we seen his best ?

I know Sita was on paternity last week, why is he not in this weeks squad?

On a positive note, at least we may get a glimpse of Latu tonight

Think he's probably playing it safe to avoid bringing Covid into his household.

We've now lost another player to the Covid Testing. 9 missing in total if you include Ben and Sita.

Wire still favourites with bookies, I'd be amazed if we win this game.

Been told the player in question will be noticeable when the line ups announced....not sure who it is though

Can imagine it's Daryl given his level of involvement - but this is just speculation.