id let cunningham have a go.

The thing is even if we do make it that far its still not good enough for saints, getting to a semi then getting drubbed by one of the other teams mentioned is no victory and not a marker for success. I say this through gritted teeth but look at the attitude difference over the lump from fans, chairman , coach and players. Nobby got the boot for creating a semi final team, ape man gets upset when they ship a bloody try never mind lose! Sometimes you have to tolerate defeat but you should never accept it and lower your standards, that is the route to decline. You hear the pies going on and you'd think they had a devine right to win things, sheer arrogance but that's the mentality of winners , even when they were terrible they demanded the best and they've back at the top for the moment. Look at all great teams, man utd , Liverpool, 80s Wigan , the last great saints team, Aussie test sides (or even just Aussie club sides) all had a touch of arrogance and set very very high standards.

If we as fans lower expectations and standards we are doomed to many years of tripe

It's not about lowering expectations. But it is about balance. If every year we don't win a title we harp on about decline, even when reaching finals. Then it's reduces the impact when we have the same grips when we are really not performing well.

There have only been 4 finalists in the last 6 years. And Wigan and Wire have only been once. When compared to everyone but Leeds our league and GF finishes have been good.

Last year and this year have been different, but they have also been the only years we have opperated without any half's.

We have declined, but sport does have ups and downs, some people moan as though they would no longer be Saints fans unless we where playing like the golden generation.

I moan with the best of them, but there is a difference between moaning and harping on year in year out even if we have made finals.

Yes but last year we were promised jam tomorrow not the marmite we have today.

Take the injuries away from the equation and the team is playing worse, little effort, and selection has been baffling all season. He has been "experimenting" from day 1 instead of trying for a settled team with players actually playing in their own positions.

I do blame Brown for that; who else fault can it be?

Of course he was involved, as your second question points out: why wouldn't he have been involved?

I'd say if was his decision to sign Manu and Turner and they have been decent signings out of what was available.

Walmsley was probably different as he was looked at prior to Royce even being sacked I'd imagine.

The players going out and coming in were correct from the position we were in. In hindsight we needed a HB but Brown probably thought that would be Lomax and Gaskell.

Next season is crucial. We have a decent team and with a couple more signings we'll be challenging again.

Brown needs time.