SL clubs are full time and are quite capable of matching fitness levels so that is clutching at straws. Wigan matched Brisbane's fitness levels. For me the issue is that SL clubs do not play at that intensity often enough. It didn't do Saints any favours playing Salford last week and winning so easy. SL needs high intensity week in week out as this develops the speed of thought and composure in that intensity.

If that deluded thought helps you get over a bad night at the office then dream on. Wigan are not good enough to beat Souths but they would not have lost by that score!

To be fair to lomax he's probably still a little rusty, he hasn't played rugby for long long time and that's only his 3rd competitive match since June last year. Look at kevin Locke last week!

For me, I'm not bothered mose going next year. He's easiky replaceable.

Just need to draw a line under this and get back to our league form.

I'm more than happy to give Lomax time, but I think it's the first time I feel his place in the team should be under threat.

Mose's main advantage of drawing players in and creating space on the edges was completely nullified yesterday, but after years of an undersized pack I'm not prepared to give up his size so easily! Wonder if Tom Burgess fancies a stint over in SL

Thing is, against SL opposition I reckon we'd of scored 6 tries if not more - we just can't let it affect our confidence...

Having watched it back again, there are more than shades of Melbourne about Souths now. They are so utterly dominant in the NRL that it does become a little suspicious. They won the Grand Final 30-6 against Canterbury and beat us 39-0. No real shame there for us IMO, especially when there were a couple of tries that were just pure luck. Either they are in a completely unsustainable position of having a heap of players earning way less than their potential earnings could be and they will gradually weaken as their current contracts come up for renewal, or all the other clubs in the NRL are doing a terrible job.

I'd cut Lomax a bit of slack. He's having things tough at the moment.

To give balance, the top 3 teams (1-2-3) in superleague should be playing the bottom play off teams (6-7-icon_cool.gif in NRL. The top 3 teams in the NRL would probably beat an England International side.

I'm not bagging him as he's a good player but I think he's lost pace and obviously he's a little rusty with not playing for long time.

NRL champions v a SL select team might be good fun, but I'm not ready to give up on the wcc yet - we lost by a similar score to the roosters but came back to win another wcc title.

Learn from it, move on. There was a time not so long ago people were advocating England not bothering playing Australia as there was no point in the constant hammerings.

Good lesson for our young team and a reality check for some aswell.

Souths were brilliant, I don't think we've played a team as strong as that in all my years of watching Saints. It's not that we were very bad, it's that Souths were that good.

The only disappointment is the nil scoreline against our name, but I think they'd have done that to anyone, they were that ruthless last night.

This +1

And the scary thing is i think they could have upped there game further if required.

We are a good Superleague side but not world class. NRL have better sides in there comp that were not on show this weekend that would stuff all superleague easy.

Souths would beat any international side at the moment.


Last week we probably made 10-15 unforced errors, and won by 50 points against a team that is paying the full salary cap in the UK. We made 5 or 6 mistakes last night and got punished each time. Souths made a couple of mistakes and we didn't punish them. That tells you all you need to know about the difference in class on show.

In a Super League game, Percival scores both his tries because the cover defence wouldn't get anywhere near to him.

I,m hoping technically the club can learn a lot from this game as a positive. After the score was 14-0, I thought there is no way we are going to win this game so I started to look at the way the Souths played the game technically.

Did anybody notice how there attacking line out changes depending on there position on the field, in there own 25 metres they had a flat attack, in the oppostion 25 metres the attacking line was very deep sometimes the winger back towards the half way line. This meant they where coming at us with speed and space with a world class full back in support, our backline most of the time contest a flat attack in superleague, yesterday our backline was lost in defence and exposed, can we learn from this and technically adopt something similar.

I think in a match against most teams, we score on at least 4 occasions last night - Makinson in the corner in the second half, Swift in the first and Percival twice. Souths just scrambled very well in defence when necessary, and on occasions we let them off lightly by not completing sets or kicking on 3rd tackle etc. Our completion was 50-60% throughout the match, I think Souths were something like 85% first half and 93% second half. Without us matching that, it was always going to be a huge struggle.

On the topic of Lomax, I think while there are times where his positioning isn't great, it's being made to look worse than it is at the minute as generally we're only dropping back the open side winger and the fullback for most kicks, rather than both wingers. This means Lomax has to be more in a corner, which obviously allows us to cover the threat of running the ball a bit easier, but means there's a hell of a lot more space for them to kick into.

For example, for their fourth try, Lomax covers so that Makinson doesn't have to drop back, so that Souths don't have an overlap on the blind side. However as a result, Swift probably needs to push over a bit more to cover for this. Between the two of them they don't communicate enough to cover the big gap, and Souths exploit this, yet how many other teams would have done so?
rlrl

For Souths' first try of the game, Lomax is caught out of position and pretty much in the defensive line. However, this is because Souths got a quick PTB from Inglis, so Masoe is caught on the wrong side of the play the ball - If Lomax wasn't there, there's 4 Souths players on the blind side and 3 attackers (Makinson is out of shot). Reynolds is smart enough to spot this and take advantage, but the previous tackles in the set Lomax was 15m behind the defensive line. The only reason he moved out of position was to cover for other players.
rlrl

On a positive note, our defense in the middle was reasonable solid. We got exposed on the edges - our wingers were okay but Burns and Wilkin made some wrong decisions and Turner was exposed by some good footwork. Through the middle we didn't really give much, despite the obvious talent in the Souths pack. While not at the speed of Souths' kick chases, our chase wasn't too bad despite some pretty ordinary kicking.

I think we massively missed Walsh. Obviously for the kicking he would have provided too (and this was a big factor), but also that bit of game sense and direction that Wilkin lacks as a halfback. There was one occasion in the first half where we kicked on the 3rd, about 30-40m out. If it had stayed in it would have been a decent kick, but it went dead and was a huge let off for Souths, while if we had kept the ball till last, we would have been in a pretty decent position to challenge for a kick. Percival looked dangerous on at least 3 occasions but we didn't seem to notice this, instead we sent a lot of traffic down our left at Walker who's obviously a lot more accomplished than Goodwin and Reddy.

I think some of our young blokes stood up pretty well - Greenwood, Thompson and Percival in particular. It's just unfortunate that we played what is probably one of the best club rugby league teams ever last night. Lots of lessons to be learned but the effort was there, and Souths would have done that to anyone in Super League on last night's showing, along with lots of NRL clubs.

Well I see over-reactions are well and truely up and running.

It's worth pointing out that the Salary cap was not always this big. It used to be a lot closer. Yet in those days with the likes of Cunningham, Long and Scully we still got schooled by the aussies.

Also as has been pointed out Canterbury Bull dogs shipped a load of points against this side.

Our defense was ok, but on the line, they were far quicker than us. The were far quicker in terms of shifting the numbers. There was a play last night that LMS knocked down and they scored. Before the ball was played 2 South's shifted across. Making a 3 on 3 a five on 3. Knock the ball down was the best option as otherwise it was an overlap. That's not bad individual play, that's poor reading as a defensive outfit. Whoever was matching the numbers did not see them shifting the players across (usually coached by the guy in blue, squatting behind and then giving the plays).

On the other hand when we got an overlap, Inglis was outstanding. A few times he came across so quick that he closed a gap other teams would never have been able to shut.

Very easy to jump off the deep end after a bad loss. But sometimes you just have to say they were better. They were and that does not mean in 12 months time the same result would ensue.