That's an excellent assessment. Winning is obviously the foremost aim of any sports organization but it's a shame we've so willingly cast aside our ethos as a flamboyant team who likes to play fast and take risks. And even more disappointing that others (particularly Leeds) have seemed to take this mantle. It's something we're known and respected for throughout the game and should always be part of our DNA. It might be a misty-eyed romantic view but when you're going through the turnstiles for 15 home games, I'd rather watch flamboyant, exciting rugby every week than 'win at all costs' error-free percentage stuff, even if it occasionally costs us points.

Conservative was one of the (many) accusations levelled at McDermott. He seems to have let our team off the leash but it certainly wasn't an overnight process.

My thoughts exactly, its a pity some of the usual fans don,t see it that way and have little faith in what could be achieved, its about this time last year the "usual suspects" came on board saying we will struggle to make the top 5, won't get to a grand final never mind winning one. Brown found a way of adapting to the cards he was dealt with.
This season is harder because the coaching staff are here 12 months too soon, every club benefits from stability which takes time, but some fans want a quick fix to success. (a la Salford)

That Dawson 'effort' just about summed up our night. Possibly the most embarrassing thing I've ever seen on a Rugby field. You could have drove a London bus through the gap he had to score, the fool didn't need to dive.

At least another 2 season ahead of him into the bargain.

There is a real danger Saints will be swallowed up by three or four teams. Leeds are comfortably better, Wigan will be next season, Wire and Huddersfield potentially too if their recruitment pays off.

It's not just the lack of strike players, poor halves and awful backs holding us back. We're playing the game like London Broncos did at the beginning of Super League. Boring, percentage based RL that is easily beaten if you can get a lead. Leeds have changed the game, the quick play the balls, the determination to offload not tuck and drive like we do and the ability to throw it wide with fantastic core skills. We're behind technically as much as we are in terms of players.

Our tactics current are:
1 - Winger runs across pitch and skids into the knees of defender
2 - Hit up by Walmsley/Amor against a rampant defense
3 - Hit up by Walmsley/Amor/backrower
4 - Kick to opposition fullback by Walsh

The wingers and Quinlan need to do more to get us going, either by hurtling into the line or evading the first man. Then the first drive can be productive rather than a 2m gain under huge pressure like it is now. All our pack should be looking to offload, fighting for that rather than extra yardage like we do now. This forces the opposition to compress and opens the space out wide that the likes of Watkins, Moon, McGuire enjoy so much at Leeds. It's risky, we don't have players with the technical ability Leeds have, but it's the future and we need to adapt to it and sign players that can play that way.

Our current tactics of low risk percentage plays ALL THE TIME would be okay if we had two or three dangerous individuals who can worry the defensive line and create breaks from nothing. We don't have that.

It the pack don't offload then the backs soon go out of the habit of making the runs to scoop the offload up.

I'm going back a bit but when we signed Derek McVey, our backs knew what he was going to do so they made sure to be on his shoulder, much like the Leeds lads around Cuthbertson.

Our forwards rarely look for the offload. They instead retain possession, and that's clearly an instruction from the coach. Keep hold of the ball and play the percentages.

Not at all. My main point was about the statements I often see on here about having the best pack on paper, or the best squad on paper. They're just opinions dressed up to look like facts. And there nonsense (another opinion).

My other point is that K C being who he is would be a hard man to sack if it came to it. And if it did come to it I wouldn't want what he did as a coach to tarnish people's view of him overall as that would diminish his deserved legendary status as a player.

I cannot stand our tactics this season. The early kick and one up rugby is just dull, and not indicative of Saints style of play as a whole. It's even more annoying when you think how well we started this season; the Souths game really knocked the stuffing out of us, and I wonder if KC lost his confidence in the style of play and reverted to a much more conservative style?

It needs changing though, as it's not working.

Having all those injured players heading into mid season, especially the pivotal ones sat in the stands had a lot to do with it, and now with our half backs in poor form we are stuck in a bit of a rut.

Also Soliola and Manu not being replaced like for like hash,t helped either. Especially Manu who could create havoc with his offloads.

I think its all down to 1, 6 , 7 and 9 playing with form to get us playing with a bit of creativity and direction.

Surely Manu was replaced with Vea? he was tearing defences to shreds until he got injured

I'd give KC two years and then review.

I don't think it will tarnish KC's playing career if it does not work out. Murphy is still regarded as a great and from what I recall his coaching tenure at Saints was somewhat volatile.


What I don't get is that Brown got a full year to do what he liked, after taking a holiday before joining us. He was given a free ride in his first 12 months (rightly so in my opinion), he did not go very well in that first year.

Now cunningham 6 months in, gets us to a semi final and will more than likely end 2nd or 3rd. yet people are already sharpening the knives. Something about it feels wrong.

I did not want him to get the job, but now he is in there, he should have at least 2 years before we start with considering to sack him.

Apart from Brown took over a team with no coach and fit halves. KC took over the super league champions

Hence the two years.

I think that's a reasonable amount of time to allow a coach to have with a team before reviewing. Anything shorter looks like indecision at the top of the club.

If you think we make a lot of errors, I'd hate to hear what you think of the 10 teams in Super League that have made more errors than us this year!



So our backs can improve by attempting to beat a defender (which they have never considered or attempted before)?

The problem with our playing style is that when you look at our squad, we've got pretty decent props and good line-running second rowers as our two main strengths IMO. Our second rowers (bar Wilkin) aren't the type to catch the ball early and put on some footwork or give a pass, but they can all hit a line cutting in from our halves. In our own half, the defence can stack in tight on these line runners and be prepared to drift if we go out the back. Consequently, we're only really dangerous from 20 out, where these line runners ie Greenwood can find an arms tackle and get through. We also don't have a similar quality linerunner on the right hand side with Wilkin (meaning Greenwood on the left) and Vea out, meaning our spread plays are much less effective that way and Percival doesn't get enough ball.

Our halves don't help in that the reason we never get enough early ball to our backs is the defence can fly up on our centres, knowing our halves don't have the pace to run themselves. This is why we have to play so structured with our three second man plays in order to get the ball to the centres; so the block runners can keep the defence honest given Walsh and Burns don't have the running threat to do so. Walsh I can kinda accept because he at least has a bit of vision and a kicking game, but I can't really see what Burns contributes.