He had to - Potter was using Gardner at prop like on Saturday.



Sorry SaintsFan, couldn't resist. Truce stands

See? I told you that you knew anyway.

That's as bizarre a post as I've ever seen on here.

Not really.

I said that Longy had made two try-saving tackles in that match. You called them last ditch. Either way, we both know that without those two tackles of Longy's it wouldn't have been us going to Old Trafford. You just don't want to admit it. It suits you better to say that those of us complaining about Potter's influence on this team are wrong because we got to Old Trafford. As if that was a huge achievement.

That's your agenda (oh, and Fear the Vee's too, since he asked me about that recently).

Opinions and agendas are two different things.

Without the tackles made by everyone else over the rest of the 80 minures we wouldn't have been going to Old Trafford. I know that if Long hadn't made those two last ditch tackles (do you deny that they were last ditch?) we wouldn't have gone, however you don't appear to accept that they were part of a whole performance and seemingly wish to ignore the contribution made by everyone else in the team. I thought you were doing a coaching course? Of all people then, I'd have expected you to take into account the fact that a result is based on a [iteam[/i performance rather than two single incidents in an entire 90 minute match.

In what way does it suit me to say you are wrong? I think your opinion is wrong (and that's all it is, an opinion, as with every other post on this subject), I don't think Potter is the Anti Christ he seems to have become on here and I don't think Anderson was the Messiah that did nothing wrong. Anderson left us with a squad on a downward slide, that lost four really top class players, and was lacking pace. Potter has had to deal with that without being able to spend a great deal of money.

I don't know why you are referring to agendas here, I've not got an agenda. I don't know anyone from the club, I'm not after protecting anybody, I have an opinion. As Fear The Vee says, and opinon and an agenda are two different things.

You seem to think everyone has an agenda, what's yours?

Billing LumpThe team were booed one game after being cheered out at Old Trafford, those are the facts however you wish to package them.[/i

Fear the Vee's agenda is that he does not wish to criticise Potter. His opinion will be that Potter needs more time or is a good coach misunderstood or whatever, and his agenda is to attempt to prove that point. He attempts to fulfil his agenda by packaging things in a certain way. It is something we all do when we have an agenda, as opposed to an opinion, and all of us have agendas. My own is to show that Potter has had a negative influence on this team and I do so by responding with the evidence as I perceive itslipped[/i to second, which reflects how we were slipping generally - five losses in our final eight matches is a bad sign. And we still had Longy and Gilmour then. We now have six losses in our final eight matches. That is how the majority of Saints fans on here and elsewhere (irl and online) are perceiving our performance against Hull. Not our loss; our performancethat[/i is an opinion rather than an agenda.

PS: I passed the course.

If you wish to interpret not thinking a coach should be sacked one game into a new season as an agenda to never criticise him, that is up to you. But please keep your imaginary projected agendas for me to yourself. Those who know me and speak to me in person about rugby will know full well that isn't an agenda I have and will also know full well that I have, and will continue to, criticise Potter when I see fit to do so.

You appear unable to accept other opinions and when asked to back up your own, you tend not to. For example, I doubt I'll receive a response on the Eastmond thread about his performances as a starting 7 next year because it suits you to ignore any evidence which supports an opinion you prefer to dismiss out of hand as "rubbish". Similarly when I asked you to explain why you thought Gardner's injury was related to Potter using him as a prop.

Perhaps if you weren't so dismissive of other opinions (not agendas) and backed your own up a little more, you wouldn't be involved in so many misunderstandings on here.

But FearTheVee [ihas[/i criticised Potter in some matters, all he has said is that he will make the judgement on whether Potter has been a failure at the end of his two year contract rather than half way through. What if Potter's brief is to ensure that we bring the team in under budget and he brings through enough youth players to ensure we meet quota requirements in a year or two and trophies are an extra?



Are you the reincarnation of Richard Nixon? That's an incredibly paranoid view on life. People can't have an opinion without having an agenda?



Other tackles didn't matter? So every other tackle made didn't prevent Wigan scoring, only Longs two tackles? That's a good example of ignoring fact to push forward your agenda, and utter rot to boot.



Then they would be wrong, we have slipped. I think all sensible posters know that we are not the team we were in 2006. The difference is that some people saw this coming and don't just blame the lot on Potter. A change of coach will still leave us with a squad that is inferior to that of the one we had in 2006 and earlier.

There you go then. That's his agenda. As is yours. There's no harm in having an agenda and it isn't a sign of paranoia to know that people have agendas. It's an intelligent observation on human functioning. The back yard wall of my parents' house recently became very dangerous. They had to get in a builder to rebuild it as a matter of urgency (the wall faces directly on to the street). Because my parents are too trusting and now also retired, my agenda is to protect my parents from exploitation. It gets on their nerves sometimes but they know I do it because I care. An agenda can be a very positive thing and it comes about when someone is convinced of something and so will interpret matters from a certain standpoint and/or promote the same through what they say. An agenda isn't always a cynical political ploy; that's just the way the term is often used.


A good example here of the more cynical application of agenda! Misquoting. I didn't say they didn't matter; I said they [iwould not have[/i mattered because it was Longy's who saved the day. What I said implied something different to what you inferred.


Again, a cynical application of your agenda here. I did not mention 2006. I referred to last season. The slippage began mid way through last season. Earlier in the season we looked as crisp and healthy as we had done under Anderson, which would make sense as his influence was still uppermost. Only Gardner appeared to suffer quite quickly.


People are blaming Potter for a deterioration that began mid way through last season not for any deterioration there may have been prior to that.


I don't buy those reasons. I was willing to do so last season except of course when our injuries returned, nothing changed. However, since you have decided not to judge Potter until he has left (which is kind of useful, I suppose) then no matter what happens between now and that time, it will not be Potter's responsibility in your view.

I would love my viewpoint to be turned on its head because my own agenda is my love for Saints. Coaches come and go but my hometown team remains. If Potter has a revelation and we begin to see concrete evidence that Saints are no longer dropping the ball, passing from a standstill, clueless on attack, playing about two obvious moves, etc, etc, then I will be the first person to say that I might have been wrong. But right now, such a change does not look hopeful to me because Saints looked the same on Saturday as they did during the second half of last season.


I didn't say that. I said that if we had been amazing everyone would have credited Potter with that. Therefore, given that we are consistently producing dire rugby league and have been for months, we must logically credit Potter with that also. In other words, you can't credit a coach with success but not with failure. The coach is either responsible or they are not. But my guess would be that you, Fear the Vee and others would be very quick to credit Potter had we been playing well (regardless of the trophies).

So my "agenda" is for Potter to keep his job at Saints regardless, whilst your agenda is that you love the club?

Get over yourself, seriously.

Your insults don't do you any favours ...

I'm sure you love the club as well. But you fancy Potter also.

I think you need to reevaluate what agenda means, unless you think patience is an agenda.



And if the other tackles had not been made than Long's would have counted for just as much. You implied that Long's tackles were more important than any other tackle in the game, when in reality they were not. A fact that is seemingly hard to accept for you.



2006 was the last time we had a squad that won the main competition we entered. Are you saying that the subsequent squads were better? The slippage started well before mid 2009. A fine example of your own agenda here. You imply that the players completely ignored Potter and his coaching until mid 2009. Why did they stop following Andersons game plan at that point?



But the deterioration [idid[/i start prior to that, to ignore that fact is a prime example of ignoring facts to suit your own agenda, an example that is more glaringly obvious than any post you have thrown that accusation at.



Did Long return fully fit? Did Fa'asavalau? No, they did not. He was given a two year contract to fulfil certain obligations, yes it is kind of useful that I will judge him after that two years. And I note that you are now deciding what my viewpoint is now. Where have I said that anything that happens will have nothign to do with Potter?



I think we all would like Saints to play dazzling rugby.



No, you implied it, otherwise why bring such an exteme example into your post?



Quite possibly, but the players would have been receiving a good amount of praise also. They aren't getting a good amout of criticism though (bar Pryce).



Our staleness in attack does have something to do with Potter, he obviously isn't as good a coach in attack as Millward was, but there are also other factors to that that are wilfully ignored by those whose main agenda is Potter bashing.



Would you not?

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.


No. Personally, I didn't notice any slippage. I did notice slippage in 2009.


I'm not sure they did. Old ways fade when new ways are introduced. I see it simply as a process which some (or all) of us began to notice at some point.


I would disagree that that is an example of my agenda. I simply did not see a deterioration prior to 2009. I saw change but not deterioration. I suppose whether or not a deterioration was observed would depend upon what criteria a fan holds by which to measure good rugby league.


He said he felt fine, just the eyelid was a problem (which seems to have pretty much resolved itself now, thankfully).


No idea. He didn't comment.


How do you know?


He was given a two year contract and apparently one obligation was integrating the young players into the team. I don't know of any other obligations other than one he cited himself which was to get the team off the silverware treadmill. He achieved that and I'm reserving judgment on his integration of the young players until his two years is up.


You have been expressing your viewpoint and so I have taken it on board as yours.


If I implied anything it was that if a coach is given credit for the good times then he must also be given credit for the bad. I cannot be responsible for what you inferred.