In some areas I don't think we are as bad as people are suggesting. I don't think motivation or fitness are real issues, and our defence, while far from excellent, has been much improved in the last few weeks.

Where we are really struggling is in our attack. It's absolutely woeful. There is virtually nobody running off the ball at any time. We don't even seem to do the simple lead runner and guy round the back play anymore. We are playing with so few options that we are easy to defend against. This problem is causing a couple of issues:

1. We are failing to capitalise on decent territory earned the hard way by our forwards in the first half of games. This is resulting in a visible wave of panic going through the side that only serves make the fundamental problem worse.

2. Our forwards are running out of juice by the hour mark. I think this is being mistaken for a lack of effort or fitness, when in fact it is down to the fact that our hopelessly predictable attack means our opponents can easily put numbers in the tackle against them. They might as well have 'hit me' written on their shirts.

The lack of structure in our attack is alarming, and you have to place responsibility for that sort of thing with the coaching team.

Simmons is doing himself no favours wearing the cheap looking track-suit top for interviews. It is not a good look for a man of his age and actually gives him the look of a "skip-dipper" from the council tip.

All of those players were on serious coin, and their salaries will have been paid out to other players who've either joined the cluib, or advanced through the ranks.

The problem IMO is two-fold.

Firstly, the players brought in just haven't been of the same quality. Some came with big reputations and haven't lived up to them; others were younger players who've not fulfilled their promise (indeed seem to have gone backwards). Every club signs these players - it's just that here we've had a procession of them. Is this poor recruitment, simple bad luck or bad coaching?

Which brings me to the second part of the problem. Look at the evolution of our team over the course of Super League, and especially from Millward onwards. Millward brought a cavalier attitude to our play (reminscent of the pre-Sl era, although now with good players and a no longer financially dominant wi*an). Our gameplan was aided by quick PTB's and keeping the opposition on the back foot when we got on a roll, along with keeping the ball alive. Our defence at times was bobbins, though. Anderson toughened the defence and brought more organisation. And, although we lost the unpredictability of the Millward golden era, we still played mostly entertaining rugby.

The rot, IMO, came with Potter. More organisation, less unpredictability. Although we conceded less, we became much easier to defend against. This was the culture in which many of our players now in the team were brought through in. The Potter appointment, with hindsight, was a very poor one. Not that he's necessarily a bad coach, but because he was wrong for Saints. I guess one mitigating factor is that around the time Potter came in, the RFL were tinkering with the rules and the interpretation thereof in terms of the ruck. After a period of ensuring players had to let the tackled player up immediately with a 10m defensive line rigidly enforced, defences were given much more latitude to slow the PTB and the distance to the defensive line seems far shorter these days. We were never going to consistently drive teams back with uber-quick PTB's and scoots from dummy half, so Potter had to change our 'plan A'. It's just that he never came up with anything effective, and we eneded up playing one-dimensional, boring rugby.

So, after Potter, we needed a top level coach to get the team back to their 'entertainers' culture. Unfortunately, on current evidence, Simmons unable to do this. If anything, we've gone further backwards in terms of attacking flair.

But we cannot panic now and sack Simmons - unless there is a top-class coach available (which I don't think there is) because, as Mugwump says, it'd be counter-productive (and more damaging in the long-term) to hand the reigns to an average coach for anything other than the rest of the season, and the type of coaches who'd take a short-term contract wouldn't, IMO, be of the calibre needed to turn our season around.

The issue I have with Royce, though, is that he seems too stubborn and, when an idea or tactic isn't working, he won't recognise this and remedy it, preferring to keep plugging away in the vain hope it'll come good, when everyone else can see it won't.

The change I'd make is that, now Lance is more familiar with the team, he should play at No7. He's an experienced player and should be given the role of organiser-in-chief.

Whilst it is clear that our squad is not as good as it has been in previous years, and that we have lost some class players in important positions. I think people need to look at the squad and compare it to other teams. We have a very competitive squad on paper, but we are under-performing. Regardless of the challenges of having an inexperienced half back pairing, lacking leadership, and losing graham we should still be doing much better. We aren't doing the basics right, and we are clueless in attack.

We still, despite the current weaknesses in the squad, have the quality to achieve top 4, so questions have to be asked why it isn't happening and what is going to be done about it.

Hallelujah! When will the penny finally drop with everyone else?

Is it giro day Tom.

We don't need Andrew Johns. A [icompetent [/iscrum half is the difference between losing against Catalans, Huddersfield and Bradford and winning. Turn those three games around and we are in contention. All were lost because we had no option on tackle five. We panicked, the ball was given over cheaply and we lost.

I disagree. A competent [idefence[/i was the difference between us losing to Catalans and Hudds and winning. A competent [iteam[/i was the difference between us losing to Bradford and Hull and winning because the whole lot of them (bar Wello against Bradford, and Hohaia with his spectacular tackle rate against Hull and Bradford) were guilty of crimes against the sport of rugby league once an individual error or two had been made. Our psychological inability to overcome an error is like a contageon in our team at present and IMO this is the primary problem (a secondary one being the unwillingness of our forwards to drive for the full 80). Once one person makes a mistake, a negative reaction ripples through the team and without Jammer there to act as a wall there is nobody to stop the ripple and overturn the chaos in the players' heads.

There was very little wrong with our defence against Huddersfield. Even Nathan Brown admitted as much. The problem was our repeated poor options on fifth tackle. During the last twenty minutes - when we had ample opportunity to win the game - time and time again we failed to put pressure on with tactical kicking. Indeed, our attempts reached tragi-comic levels (including a length-of-the-field, game-changing try). Against Catalans our defence was admittedly poor, but it all began because instead of trying to close the game out after half time with a solid possession and kicking strategy we repeatedly threw the ball away on early tackles giving them the impetus, which they took. A good scrum half would have taken ownership of the situation. We had none.

But, by all means, keep trying to justify your wet-dream Lomax-REALLY-REALLY-REALLY-IS-a-scrum-half fantasy, despite the fact that he has no kicking game and no long-passing game.

I would probably say 100% effort and 10% Attitude and 10% Communication. Surely its the coaching set up to ensure the latters.

Exactly. Like I said, it's Groundhog Day. The difference being that Saints will doubtless resolve their issues quite quickly, unlike what we had to endure.

Jesus.