We can all debate about not replacing past legends, poor judgement of recruitment etc. But it goes much deeper than that we are a lazy, indiscipline team out of condition with a terrible attitude.

It makes you wonder what coaching staff Brown has got around him, KC may be a legend but I can,t see what benefit he has on the team, similarly our conditioner what effect does he have on players performance as most of the time we are very lethargic and unfit.

Since we left Knowsley Road we seemed to have left the fighting spirit behind. Our basic errors and non completions must be the highest to date in superleague.

If all of the above was addressed I,m sure we would have won 2 or 3 more games more this season, even with the player personnel we have at the moment.

Can anybody remember if we have played one game this season for the full 80 mins with commitment, desire etc. I can,t.

Warrington and Leeds away

First 20 minutes away at Leeds we were abysmal...

I thought we were abysmal for 10 to 15 minutes in the Warrington game as well.

Probably. They certainly were in the last round (according to the Stats Pack show on Sky anyway).


I don't think anyone at the club cares about this season. Just look at the chairman's statement. It's about next season. I don't think anyone ever intended to do much this season.


I can't either. It's been one level of dross or another all season.

Answers in red, my clueless one-dimensionally agenda'ed kneejerk friend.

Your an angry man.

Longy was replaced by Eastmond who like you say was an amazing prospect - shame we didnt sort out his contract [ibefore[/i getting rid of every other decent halfback at the club. Some amazing strategy at work there.

Scully was a beast but I suspect we thought we'd replaced him with Wilkin - sadly thats a massive downgrade. Nearest thing to Scully is probably Westerman

Graham - well we replaced him with a second row - not exactly a great plan. The fact he's played for Aus in the back row hardly qualify's him to replace one of the worlds best props

Gidley - I suspect most people would agree we did ok here , Shenton didnt hit the heights but on the face f it was a sound signing.

Talau - for me this was the start of the rot - Gilmour was a second row who could provide cover in other positions, using him as a replacement and claiming there was nothing else out there is just plain cost cutting stupidity.

That's what wading through plebs does to you unfortunately.


...and of course you'dve preferred it at the time if we'd let him go to Warrington and kept Smith instead? This board wouldn't have melted with bile from the agenda'ed "ambition" brigade then and would have been full of "great move Saints" posts instead wouldn't it? ****ing unbelievable...




Anything is a downgrade on Scully. TP and Wilkin have been about as good at filling the role (some of their terrible injuries aside, particularly Wilkin's) as we could have found under the circumstances.


We've done the "who realistically could/should we have signed to replace Talau at the time worth the money" thing many, many, many, many times before. Noone has ever yet come up with a name we could and should have signed at the time that would have been as good as just moving Gilmour out there. Noone. Feel free to make your own suggestions though and we'll go 'round the whole sorry roundabout again shall we?

Nobody's saying our signings have all been fantastic or the right moves. All that is at question is our supposed "ambition" and desire to compete. In the last 3 years we've signed 2 Aussie international forwards, a world-cup winning fullback, GB's first-choice centre, resigned Robes, TP and Sia despite big offers from elsewhere, offered as much money as a rich RU club to keep Eastmond etc. etc. etc. There is no lack of "ambition" there whether numpties like it or not. You can question the wiseness and common sense of some of the decisions (Hohaia was a brainfart from the very start) - you can't question the "ambition".

It is possible to post replies to others comments, without name calling.

The hint of the use of the word Plebs was enough to get a chief whip kicked out of office.

Lets keep it civil, there is no need for the use of name calling, it's always the last resort of a a desperate debater.

To be fair Pleb is a contraction of Plebites who were the common citizens of Rome. At worst he's called them Common Romans.

Whilst it is a roman word, it has for years been used as an insult, just the same as a scally, scroat etc.

It was a word used by the privileged classes about the people from the lower social classes. So hardly a compliment.

The point still stands there is no harm in being civil when making your point. It's just common courtesy.

In the end when a thread breaks down into trading insults, the point is lost. And it become a keyboard warrior attempt to try and get as far as they can before the filter, mods or others have to get involved.

I'd rather just remind people that you can debate without insults, regardless of the level permitted.

Your a total idiot and a laughing stock on most of the boards but I find you funny.


Why don't you call me a pleb to my face? Saints next home game will be nice for you to do it. Name your time and place and I'll see you there. If I was you, I'd meet after the game or you'll not be able to see it.