He did okay. We were heading over a ravine into the bottom half of the top eight before he came in and we were forty minutes away from another Grand Final. Given where we were he did a great job in stopping that. However, at best we only managed to replicate what we did last season and we didn't play as well at the tail end as we did last year. For an emergency appointment it was a success and kept KC out of the spotlight which was important too. Potter won coach of the year and deservedly so. After that though I think you'd be hard pressed to find another person as deserving as Mike. He stepped up from coaching the kids, despite having no previously revealed ambitions to do so in a honourable manner akin to Potter.

Smith and Agar spring to mind straight away as being far more deserving than Rush.

I was reflecting on this season compared to last.

Unlike last season, this year has seen:

- hardly any young players play on anything like a regular basis (and of those who played last year, those who have featured regularly have all gone backwards, even Makinson despite his superb finishing);
- our defence has been unpredictable: one minute squeezing the life out of the opposition, the next conceding 30 plus points in one match;
- our attack has been nowhere and we have had to rely upon kicks to secure tries (when we actually remember to kick of course);
- our style of play has been boring to the point of rigidity, beyond anything I've seen from Saints even under Potter (who produced some frighteningly boring stuff at times);
- we failed to get into the CC semi for the first time in 12 years;
- we failed to get to the GF for the first time in 7 years (contrast that with McManus's statement at the end of last season when he said he wanted us to start converting our chances);
- we have failed to have a single player in the national side for the first time in I think 20 years.

If any other coach - any coach, regardless of experience - had overseen that legacy everyone on here bar none would be calling for his head. As it is, because McManus has been crafty and used Mike Rush, enough fans are soft enough to make allowances. McManus didn't get to being in the top 50 wa ... sorry bankers in the world by not being crafty.

However, I judge Rush just as I would any other appointment and when I compare what he hasn't achieved with what Simmons did achieve (given all that HE had to contend with), I'm extremely glad Rush won't be coaching the team next year and my gut feelings about the season way back when Simmons was sacked were bob on.

However, Mike Rush is still telling the world he's done a great job, 'given where we were at the early part of the season'. Yeah, right. Nobody had won anything or got anywhere in the early part of the season. That's what the early part of the season is about. In the end though Leeds lost more games than us and played worse than us and yet reached two finals, so that line just doesn't wash with me. Even McManus has gotten on to the bandwagon, trying to justify his decision by saying that not only did we lose the games we did but the ones we won were against 'weak opposition'. Like Saints have never lost to weak opposition before. And as if Bradford was weak - they would have made the top eight but for their six point deduction.

Awful season. Glad it's over. Glad Rush has gone. Hopefully Brown will be able to pick things up and start over.

The only bright sparks to the season for me have been those wonderful tries scored by Tommy Makinson, yet again not recognised as he should have been (except by John Kear) and Josh Perry's naked run. But even Josh Perry's naked run is a disappointment because I wasn't there to see it.

I think its fairly conclusive now that the vote has shown 70% think Rush did a good job under the circumstances and restraints put on him.
He did a relatively good job with the younger players and grounded Lomax, Makinson and Jones into fixed positions, opportunities were given to young Swift putting him in good stead for the next season.
He kept the wheels on the Wagon without the temptation of putting more younger players in the side which would have destabalized the team. There could have also been the temptation to open up the playing style and play entertaining rugby but I,m sure his agenda would have been to make sure we make the play offs.
Hopefully Rush will never be put into this position again by the club....big thanks to Mike Rush for his loyalty and willingness to take on the pressures of an acting head coach.

Nah. Smith did no more than what was expected and Agar reached eighth. If he'd finished sixth then maybe you can say he's overachieved but most of the low expectations placed on Wakey were due to him being appointed not because the squad was weak.