We've had arguably worse injuries this season and in case you somehow missed it - we've adjusted our style of play on several occasions. At the start of the year we played some of our best rugby attacking the line with two props, one off the shoulder of the other and delaying the final pass for them to take advantage of the space. We were also kicking very early in our sets. Then after we lost both Vea and Greenwood we seemed to stop running tight loop-arounds entirely and suddenly we weren't kicking early any more. Admittedly we've not given the ball as much width as I like - but I have to say we have also scored some absolutely spectacular tries, too.

Comparisons with Brown are utterly pointless unless you are prepared to judge both sides up to THIS point in both seasons. It's hilarious how everyone is Brown's biggest supporter today - but I remember some of the vitriol and bile which was spewed in his direction prior to the playoffs. It wasn't pretty and many of the criticisms leveled at him are similar to those I'm seeing now.



The point is - they rarely were. And we still won the GF. Which says precisely WHAT? In your own time, please.



Are we talking about the same Saints team, here? Prior to Millward's arrival at Knowsley Road, St. Helens had - FOR DECADES - emphasized attacking primarily down the flanks. Year after year our top-tryscorers were Vollenhoven, Ledger, Quirk, Hunte, Sullivan etc. with the likes of Newlove, Elia and even Paul Loughlin not far behind them.

I agree that Ian Millward added mobility and athleticism to the side - but you are completely and utterly WRONG in suggesting he added "width". On the contrary, Ian Millward CONTRACTED Saints attacking style considerably - not least because he placed such a great emphasis on players getting to their feet quickly, thus enabling our dummy-halves to make several scoots per set of six.

As stated, prior to Millward we always scored heaps through the outside backs. Of course, the likes of Sullivan and Newlove continued to score - but if you actually bother to check the stats our most prolific players (Long, Martyn, Cunningham, Sculthorpe & Wellens) all made bank down the CENTRE channel.

Just because Saints had the kind of talent in the outside backs who could score out of nothing - this doesn't mean Ian Millward was an "expansive coach". He was not.



Completely subjective. We've played great rugby down the middle (under MILLWARD) and out wide (primarily under Bomber and even Hanley). So which method fits the "Saints Culture"?

Consider Wigan. John Monie was an insanely successful coach and arguably their best. He was also boring as hell.

The truth is "Culture" is in the eye of the beholder. I remember back in the eighties when people were saying the British game was far more entertaining than the ARL. Perhaps it was. But it didn't stop us being smashed from pillar to post each time the Kangaroos toured or we went over there.

Take a boxing tip from your mate, St. Pete, [i"Styles make fights".[/i



Unless the club is dumber than I think they are talking more about things like behaviour, responsibilities etc. It would be completely ludicrous for any club to commit FOREVER to a particular style of play. I mean, what happens if the opposition devise a counter-strategy? Do we just soldier on taking one pounding after another - ad infinitum? Or do we change? I think we both know the answer to that question.



EASY.



Let me ask you a question. You've just praised Brown to the heavens. I'm prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt over whether you thought similarly during those periods when we were getting pummelled last season.

[iBut what if I said that it was Nathan Brown who advised Cunningham that this strategy best suited our current crop?[/i

You'd have to think he'd have offered some kind of advice to the incoming coach and given Brown's success (and Cunningham's position as a complete novice) you'd have to think Keiron would have taken such very seriously.



A classic example of "glass half empty/full" if ever I've seen one. Let me remind you that Saints have been in more competitive and incredibly close matches this season than I can remember in a long, long time.

Isn't THAT entertainment? What more do you WANT? Or are you one of those people who only comes alive after we've sunk sixty points into the opposition?



You keep throwing 'em, I'll keep hitting the home runs.

It's been so peaceful on here last week or two and now back to the constant "im know better then you" debate.

Every theread turns into a debate.

Seriously, I just don't understand what you aren't getting here. This is a public discussion board - the operative word being "discussion", "debate" or whatever the hell else you want to call it.

If you wanted peaceful quiet and goodwill to all men shouldn't you have joined a monastery or a hippie commune instead?

The strange thing is you have absolutely no qualms about aggressively going after anyone who doesn't agree with your opinion. Yet somehow I'm the villain?

I wasn't a fan of Brown's time. If you'd have told me mid way through his tenure that he'd win the GF I'd have been very surprised.
What he did was random. Not just the GF, but other big games were won somehow, despite us looking poor with the ball for long periods and always a bit shakey out wide. Its still a head scratcher for me know.

KC has had us doing some excellent things. Early in the season we looked very ggod. We had good shape with Vea and Greenwood proving a real handful in their channels. The kick chase was excellent and we had plenty of big front rowers bashing it up. The defence was also very successful.

We don't (and haven't for ages) spread the ball to the 3/4s well, which is why the more physical Turner is getting more joy with the ball than Percy, who would thrive more of early ball in space.

One wonders if KC has got too obsessed with things like a kick chase being the dominant strengths for the team, and is negelecting creativity.

We simply don't test defences, its too easy to read and so easy to defend, we're just relying on the size of our lads to break through, but its too easy for the defence to brickwall us in the middle when we're so predicable. Not only does that make thing 10 times harder for the big men, but you'll see certain players playing with a whole lot less confidence and enthusiasm if they're getting lined up every time.