That's an excellent assessment. Winning is obviously the foremost aim of any sports organization but it's a shame we've so willingly cast aside our ethos as a flamboyant team who likes to play fast and take risks. And even more disappointing that others (particularly Leeds) have seemed to take this mantle. It's something we're known and respected for throughout the game and should always be part of our DNA. It might be a misty-eyed romantic view but when you're going through the turnstiles for 15 home games, I'd rather watch flamboyant, exciting rugby every week than 'win at all costs' error-free percentage stuff, even if it occasionally costs us points.

I'd give KC two years and then review.

I don't think it will tarnish KC's playing career if it does not work out. Murphy is still regarded as a great and from what I recall his coaching tenure at Saints was somewhat volatile.


What I don't get is that Brown got a full year to do what he liked, after taking a holiday before joining us. He was given a free ride in his first 12 months (rightly so in my opinion), he did not go very well in that first year.

Now cunningham 6 months in, gets us to a semi final and will more than likely end 2nd or 3rd. yet people are already sharpening the knives. Something about it feels wrong.

I did not want him to get the job, but now he is in there, he should have at least 2 years before we start with considering to sack him.

Apart from Brown took over a team with no coach and fit halves. KC took over the super league champions

Hence the two years.

I think that's a reasonable amount of time to allow a coach to have with a team before reviewing. Anything shorter looks like indecision at the top of the club.

If you think we make a lot of errors, I'd hate to hear what you think of the 10 teams in Super League that have made more errors than us this year!



So our backs can improve by attempting to beat a defender (which they have never considered or attempted before)?

The problem with our playing style is that when you look at our squad, we've got pretty decent props and good line-running second rowers as our two main strengths IMO. Our second rowers (bar Wilkin) aren't the type to catch the ball early and put on some footwork or give a pass, but they can all hit a line cutting in from our halves. In our own half, the defence can stack in tight on these line runners and be prepared to drift if we go out the back. Consequently, we're only really dangerous from 20 out, where these line runners ie Greenwood can find an arms tackle and get through. We also don't have a similar quality linerunner on the right hand side with Wilkin (meaning Greenwood on the left) and Vea out, meaning our spread plays are much less effective that way and Percival doesn't get enough ball.

Our halves don't help in that the reason we never get enough early ball to our backs is the defence can fly up on our centres, knowing our halves don't have the pace to run themselves. This is why we have to play so structured with our three second man plays in order to get the ball to the centres; so the block runners can keep the defence honest given Walsh and Burns don't have the running threat to do so. Walsh I can kinda accept because he at least has a bit of vision and a kicking game, but I can't really see what Burns contributes.

I,ve got Vea more of a Soliola type player who can also play prop when needed, we are missing Vea's energy at the moment. Manu never got replaced, we know he made plenty of errors but he also made most of our offloads, this is missing from most of our games as we become more and more predictable with our flat attack.
Friday's game will be interesting to see if we have made tactical changes, I,m just hoping our half backs provide more options otherwise it will be a "General Moan - Part 2"