Losing lomax was devestating but not the only reason we lost

The halves don't physically force Wigan's backs to run those angles. They have to possess the aptitude in the first place to work as part of a cohesive attacking unit marshalled by the playmakers. The big difference is they do it at pace. Raw pace and pace between the ears. We are sadly lacking in both departments.

I DO rate Lomax. I just don't rate him as a/the playmaker. There's a difference.

I notice you say he "would" have straightened up their line instead of he "did" straighten up their line when he was on. Which he didn't.

Saints presented no greater attacking threat prior to Lomax's injury.

Running those angles is coached into them. Practising allows players to do this at pace.

I'll give you Tomkins being a cut above (now he is world class with ball in hand) and can read the game superbly, but the others are just a result of long-term coaching in that particular skill, along with the team playing that particular style

You can't even begin to compare Wigan's performances in the backs (with more than one coach) with ours over the last five years.

They score tries from inside their own half. Our backs can't go forty metres without being dragged down.

Look at Gardner being burned off the field vs a part-time loose-forward in the Hull game.

In terms of attacking threat this is one of the worst sets of backs I've seen in years.

Take the blinkers off. This is nealy as laughable as the Saints fans that have been trying to tell us all week that Tomkins was the only one that can make a break and that Saints have all these line breakers compared to Wigan. Well out of our 'average' backs we have 5 players in the top 25 players in SL for clean breaks. Tomkins is way out in front, Goulding, who has been fantastic all season and far from bog standard is 11th, Richards and Charnley joint 14th and Finch joint 17th. 1-7 from Wigan outplayed their opposite numbers today and I certainly wouldnt swap any of Saints 1-7 for any of Wigans. Oh by the way Saints have none in the top 25 which says a lot about your backs.

I'm pretty sure if you read the whole thread, you'll reallise that's what is being said.

In relation to the original thread title, if I'd been offered two wins from the next three games after the Bulls game, I'd have snatched your hand off. Add to this the style of rugby played in those two games, in relation to the dross that we've watched for 3+ seasons prior, and I'd certainly take it.

Wigan were better than us today. It happens. The way to respond is to go to their place and turn them over.

It was what struck me as i looked at the team lineups... If we could hold the forwards, we were better in the backs... That said, i thought you had the stronger looking pack and bench, on paper.

Good job we don't play on paper!!

Blinkers? I was being pragmatic. If you think Richards IS "electric"; Charnley IS "world class"; Carmont ISN'T past his best; and Goulding IS better than the majority of SL centres, then by all means you be at peace with your beliefs.

Anyway, there are many reasons why a player can appear to make so many clean breaks - sometimes it's the quality of the individual and their ability to beat a player with skill & pace (Tomkins, for example), whilst other times it's the quality of the player(s) inside them (I'd like to see how many clean breaks Ade Gardener made with Lyon as his centre...).

wi*an play a game where their attack involves a lot of ball to the outside backs, with plenty of dummy-running and very good angles. This is always going to create breaks by the three-quarters. It doesn't mean those three-quarters are modern rugby superstars.

The best team won, get used to it.

What an enlightening post, particularly as this thread is full of people claiming that Saints were actually the best side.

Well done.

Come off it. The way you paint this comparison anyone might think we haven't moved the ball toward the backs in years. This is patently absurd. Irrespective of whether you think Saints have played conservatively over the last two or three seasons the fact remains there have been plenty of occasions when we have opened up - runners, angles and all. And yet time after time we have found it enormously difficult to score tries from outside the 40m mark. So much so I almost fell off my chair when Meli scored that 70 yarder the other week.

Wigan, on the other hand, seem to score long-distance tries with great regularity. Yes, many of them are down to clever tactics, good distribution etc. But many others are purely down to pace, acceleration, elusiveness and guile. Words which are rarely used in the company of Meli, Gardner, Shenton & Wellens.

Is this a "world beating" Wigan back line? Aside from Tomkins - no. But then it doesn't need to be in order to beat ours.