I get the point about playing more entertaining rugby. It's not just Saints fan on her own there, and not just Internet posters either.

We where great last night, but although finals are important for players they are not the life blood of a club, weeks 1 - 27 are the week that bring in the big money for the club from the 14k that go regular.

If they are bored then clubs would suffer if that fell away and fans only turned up to watch the entertaining games in the playoffs. I know some people will go week in week out regardless of entertainment value. But thousands also will maybe think twice.

In a way its a seperate arguement to last nights game. In playoff rugby you do play tighter style of game, but the weekly rounds are open to a bit more in the way of chancing your arm.

It's been tougher for Rush as he had a huge handicap to cover at the start of his reign so you can see why he would choose to go the route of minimal errors and a narrower game, but it's a balance that I hope we can sway a little more to getting the ball wider earlier next year.

Can anyone really link entertaining rugby to gates? When was the last time saints played entertaining rugby? I'd say the millward era. Have the gates suffered since then? No! If Anything they have improved. A few fickle fans will use this as an excuse to not renew their season tickets, but the vast majority will be back next year. Gates are more influenced by what happens around the game, and whether the club is successful.

Fair point.

Consistent evidence comprehensively proves that the top 3 driving factors for attendences in SL at any given moment in time are: the overall "buzz" surrounding the game itself, the innate interest in RL in the area and the quality of facilities at the stadium. On-field performance is a minor factor. Fact.

Are you seriously saying we didn't entertain you under Daniel Anderson?

Daniel Anderson took millwards entertainers and turned then into defenders. Yes there was still plenty of entertainment left in the players then, but he started the shift to boring rugby. Potter took it further, Simmons never got chance to do anything other than fight injurys, rush has steadied the ship. I see nothing from brown to suggest he will play entertaining rugby

Anderson added steel and structure, we were still entertaining and more importantly winning. Under Plodder we were so dreadful I was close to not renewing my season ticket

At their peak did you not think Hudds played entertaining rugby? I thought they played some stunning stuff.

Last season they played great rugby and IMO the best team to watch.

They challenged the Goons for the title of the greatest grapplers.

Saracens just convinced 41,000 people to go to wemblely to watch a regular league game against Leicester. The result was a stunning 9 all draw (that's 3 penalties each).
No, brand of rugby is down the list on what get's people through the gates, I reckon.