Cant really see him getting any game time unless we have 2 or 3 injuries,so will be interesting to see if he is still with us at end of year, our run of form did coincide with him being replaced by sykes. Personally would prefer to see us developing local talent rather than bringing in development players fromn overseas.

issac certainly as skill, his problem is pace ,for a stand off he hasnt any ,but i agree with some on here im sure he could do a job for us if called upon, its just this lack of pace which stops him from being top notch

Agree.

This case is typical of he twisted logic applied by some fans.

They wet themselves at the prospect of Brad Singleton joining the club on loan - a ONE SL game player. Who judging from what I have seen will be a 6th choice prop. This is fair enough because he's young, inexperienced and not really quite ready for SL.

Isaac John is in exactly the same position but is derided as "crap" by certain poster - yet he is no better or worse than Wildie or Singleton or most 20 year old players.

So why pick on him, what is his crime. Being a foreigner as far as I can tell. Whether the club were right or wrong to invest in an overseas youngster is debatable but that's hardly Isaacs fault as he is probably exactly where you would expect him to be at this point in his development- about the same or slightly better than Wildie.

This is very unfair on the kid - he's a Kiwi but that doesn't mean he's instantly a superstar - he has been burdened with a level of over expectation that comes with being an overseas player, unfairly imho - he needs the same time to develop as any English player of similar ability.

I'd pretty much agree with all of that.

I think he can do a job for us if given a chance, but I would say that I think quota spots should be reserved for players who are going to do more than "do a job for us" when called upon.
The quota players should be regular starters for me. How many other teams have quota players that don't even make the 17 regularly when fit??

As I stated the decision to sign him was debatable - a long term gamble that may pay off. But then that's the case with all youngsters.

I suppose if it had payed off straight away Henry Paul style we'd be hailing the club as pioneering. Over all OMHO worth a punt but I like you am not convinced it's the best use of a quota spot.

However that isn't Isaacs fault.

he was nowhere near our worst player during the early part of the season but his position was unfortunately the obvious sacrifice when the fact we didnt have anyone who could kick a goal from anywhere but in front of the posts finally hit home.

To criticise him based on his goalkicking was unfair as he was never a regular kicker in the first place and to be fair to John, i think the missed goal kicks affected his overall performance/confidence and he never really got a chance once Sykes was established in the team and Smith actually started playing well.

I thought some of his touches were promising - i don't think he great overall but he was playing in a new team that was playing pretty poorly at the time, so it would have been hard to have been oustanding (unless you are Paul Aiton).

I think this is the problem Vasty, he was announced with a fanfare, acclaimed to be a top young Kiwi player and because of this, the expectations were too high.
We have always "oversold" our new signings, partly to excite the masses and encourage spectators to turn up but, the downside is that if players dont turn out to be superstars (which they rarely do), then the are set up for a fall.
Maybe the answer is to sign new players without a fanfare, unless they are proven at the highest level.

He was only ever acclaimed as a top young kiwi player on this board. He came over here as a 23 year old having played just 9 NRL games. Francis Maloney, Shaun Johnson and Brett Seymour were all ahead of him in the first grade team. In his last season at NZ warriors he wasn't even an automatic pick at stand off in there second string side, he started a few times at loose forward. I think expectations of him were a little high, he was always going to be a bit of a risk. Maybe the mistake was giving him an initial 3 year contract.

I don't think he makes the grade, have seen a fair bit of him in both first and reserve sides and i just can't see what he offers.

Its a shame for him and like a few have said he's taking up space/cap that could be used elsewhere.

The club took a gamble and its not payed off but i can't blame them for trying.

He's older than I thought, 22 when he signed so at 24 he should be hitting his stride - make or break season I suppose.

Sad though it is, he's broken already IMO. He doesn't have pace, a passing game or a kicking game - at least not for this level of football.

I know of better judges than I who think he has got it, but I just don't see it unfortunately and he's just taking up both a quota place and cash that could be used to better effect.

If Francis Maloney was ahead of him then he really would be bad!! Obviously i meant James. My opinion is he has talent but i'm not sure if he has the all round game it takes to become a top division half. His passing is decent but his kicking game is average and as been mentioned he lacks that vital yard of pace.

I don't blame Isaac one bit,This is a Wakefield talent spotting issue to bring the lad over and give him a three year deal on a off chance was very nieve,give him a 1 year deal with a possible extension.But its easy with hindsight,somebody earlier said about a certain Henry Paul if he turned out like him happy days,Our coaches dont have a problem letting good local talent who played in the U 20s semi final team leave.WHY? No doubt they have there reasons.Many championship clubs are now benefiting.

I dont see as he offers anything but if someone in charge at the club thought he had it in him when he first came was it a case of - We brought Henry Paul over on just a 1 year contract and some one else got the benefit after and are we better giving a 3 year deal so that wont happen again - a bit of a damned if you do damned if you dont situation and goes to prove the home work realy has to be done if bringing in a young overseas player thats unproven.

I think John has some ability, but I do not agree with the he is only young/time to develop idea.
According to Wiki he is 24 years old for goodness sake.
How much time are we to give him?
The real class acts are usually internationals at that age.

We're at a crossorads with John. He isn't going to get first team rugby unless we suffer a huge injury list. That said, it seems the likes of Cowling, Walshaw and Wildie talked about how beneficial their time at Doncaster etc was. For me, John needs to be playing and therefore i'd loan him out.

That is the only way i think we'll ever find out if he's cut out for a sustained run of first team games in SL.

I think John should be given this season to fight his way in, Sykes is getting on and we would be foolish to discard a half back who I thought showed some flashes of quality - despite not really carrying it through.

I went to the majority of the games last season, and the games he played in he played decent. I dont feel that he likes the way fans treat him, giving him beef. Thats knocks every players confidence. We need to get behind him. He has the potential and I was watching the highlights from last season and he did pretty well and starred in a couple of great plays. I completely agree with you there. If Agar didn't want him here he'd be gone. Sykes only signing a one year deal makes me wonder if Agar is going to use John in the future. On loan would help him yes but he will only get used to super league if he plays super league.

Agree with the previous post. Watch the win v Catalans again, if he can build on performances like that he'll be a good'un.

People seem to forget we did win some games prior to the 7 in a row and when John was swapped for Sykes and Ellis came in for Aiton and the catalans game at home was one game that we really played well as a team for most of the game, just ran out of steam and ideas

Generally, folk are being a little bit harsh on John.
If he'd had a better goal kicking record, it is most likely that we would not have signed Sykes, leaving Smith and John as our half-back pairing.
Having said that, there aren't too many teams that use a quota spot for a future star.

What about Tim Smith he looked 10x a better player with Sykes. John held him back. The games I saw John in he was way off some of you must watch with tinted goggles on or drunk. That game against Salford he was running in treacle catching Joel Moon. You are kidding yourself if you think it was just his goalkicking ball in hand his kicks were awful.

And here ends any chance of sensible debate - LOCK IT

Indeed. Thread ruined!

I have to admit when Sykes was put at stand off it allowed Smith to just play his own game and not have to worry or look out for his half back partner.If John had not been bulled up he just might have had a better chance but from the off he was expected to perform but thats no different to the other players.As for he dont like some fans being on his back well Im sorry but thats life for you and as the saying goes "you can please some of the people some of the time" and all that.If he gets game time we should give him Our full support but that wont change my view that he wont be good enough.When/if he gets game time I will give him my full support though.