So really, we're agreed. He'll have matched the reasonable expectations we had of him given the circumstances, but, realistically, you'd want considerably more delivered by a permanant head coach.

After what he's done I wouldn't want him to be permanent head coach as he doesn't seem like a good long-term solution, but do you think that some of his decisions may have been made differently had he been given the job permanently in the first place?

Nah. IMO he's shown that he has no advanced tactics or play book beyond safety first.
Plus, dropping your only player with a long kicking game when you've decided to stick to % rugby shows a real odd approach.

Not quite. As I said at the time of Royce's sacking, I was of the view that to sack an experienced coach who had taken us to a GF the season before was a mistake, especially so early in the season when our losses had been so marginal. In that sense my expectations have been realised, but whether you would consider those expectations 'reasonable' is another matter. My expectations have been met not just because we were dumped out of the CC at quarter final stage for the first time in 12 years or that we didn't make it to the GF for the first time in 7 years. But also because of the attitude towards the young players, the willingness to play senior players regardless of their form or attitude, and the style of play, among other things.

Mmm, but are you talking about your expectations of Rush as a coaching individual, or the club set up as a whole? I agree he's shown tactical deficiancies and the whole Gaskell thing stuck in my craw, but I'm sure you/I/we wouldn't criticise a player with comparible 1st team experience for making some wrong decisions, but he did take us from 10th to 3rd & he beat Leeds, Wigan, Wire & Catalan (just). Rush the man has done alright, but he'll not be swatting away offers from Superleague clubs just yet.

While there were some sensible arguments against Royce leaving, we were in a real hole and I don't think he'd have pulled us round (certainly not as soon) and I don't think he'd have won any pots.
I do think that the nail in his coffin was mcmanus thinking about ongoing ticket sales. It was extremely depressing watching given the nature of our defeats, even if they were only by a couple of points (the Hull and Bradford games stick in my mind). Moving to a interim coach immediately lowered and expectations for the season and made people look forward to next, granting the temporary staf a degree of immunity to criticism for their tenure.
I'll stick by the club as it being the right decison at the time.

Will Rush be at Saints next year? www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/19800085

Will Rush be at Saints next year? www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/19800085

I think Huddersfield would have killed for a coach like Rush to get the players playing % football and to stop the rot.

He did the job that was needed. I'm sure had he done that for 6-8 games to give Saints time to find an available coach, then none of this over expectation of winning GF's would be laid at his door. A temporary measure for 3/4's of a season was just a bit too long for some fans.

Never expected us to win anything. But expect to turn up to games and get entertained. Currently we are the Bradford of a few years ago. DULL.

Quote: Rogues Gallery "Will Rush be at Saints next year? Yes; Saints tweeted that he's just going to move upstairs in the organisation. https://twitter.com/Saints1890/status/2 ... 9652763648

Quote: Rogues Gallery "Will Rush be at Saints next year? Yes; Saints tweeted that he's just going to move upstairs in the organisation. https://twitter.com/Saints1890/status/2 ... 9652763648

He did okay. We were heading over a ravine into the bottom half of the top eight before he came in and we were forty minutes away from another Grand Final. Given where we were he did a great job in stopping that. However, at best we only managed to replicate what we did last season and we didn't play as well at the tail end as we did last year. For an emergency appointment it was a success and kept KC out of the spotlight which was important too. Potter won coach of the year and deservedly so. After that though I think you'd be hard pressed to find another person as deserving as Mike. He stepped up from coaching the kids, despite having no previously revealed ambitions to do so in a honourable manner akin to Potter.

Smith and Agar spring to mind straight away as being far more deserving than Rush.

I was reflecting on this season compared to last.

Unlike last season, this year has seen:

- hardly any young players play on anything like a regular basis (and of those who played last year, those who have featured regularly have all gone backwards, even Makinson despite his superb finishing);
- our defence has been unpredictable: one minute squeezing the life out of the opposition, the next conceding 30 plus points in one match;
- our attack has been nowhere and we have had to rely upon kicks to secure tries (when we actually remember to kick of course);
- our style of play has been boring to the point of rigidity, beyond anything I've seen from Saints even under Potter (who produced some frighteningly boring stuff at times);
- we failed to get into the CC semi for the first time in 12 years;
- we failed to get to the GF for the first time in 7 years (contrast that with McManus's statement at the end of last season when he said he wanted us to start converting our chances);
- we have failed to have a single player in the national side for the first time in I think 20 years.

If any other coach - any coach, regardless of experience - had overseen that legacy everyone on here bar none would be calling for his head. As it is, because McManus has been crafty and used Mike Rush, enough fans are soft enough to make allowances. McManus didn't get to being in the top 50 wa ... sorry bankers in the world by not being crafty.

However, I judge Rush just as I would any other appointment and when I compare what he hasn't achieved with what Simmons did achieve (given all that HE had to contend with), I'm extremely glad Rush won't be coaching the team next year and my gut feelings about the season way back when Simmons was sacked were bob on.

However, Mike Rush is still telling the world he's done a great job, 'given where we were at the early part of the season'. Yeah, right. Nobody had won anything or got anywhere in the early part of the season. That's what the early part of the season is about. In the end though Leeds lost more games than us and played worse than us and yet reached two finals, so that line just doesn't wash with me. Even McManus has gotten on to the bandwagon, trying to justify his decision by saying that not only did we lose the games we did but the ones we won were against 'weak opposition'. Like Saints have never lost to weak opposition before. And as if Bradford was weak - they would have made the top eight but for their six point deduction.

Awful season. Glad it's over. Glad Rush has gone. Hopefully Brown will be able to pick things up and start over.

The only bright sparks to the season for me have been those wonderful tries scored by Tommy Makinson, yet again not recognised as he should have been (except by John Kear) and Josh Perry's naked run. But even Josh Perry's naked run is a disappointment because I wasn't there to see it.

I think its fairly conclusive now that the vote has shown 70% think Rush did a good job under the circumstances and restraints put on him.
He did a relatively good job with the younger players and grounded Lomax, Makinson and Jones into fixed positions, opportunities were given to young Swift putting him in good stead for the next season.
He kept the wheels on the Wagon without the temptation of putting more younger players in the side which would have destabalized the team. There could have also been the temptation to open up the playing style and play entertaining rugby but I,m sure his agenda would have been to make sure we make the play offs.
Hopefully Rush will never be put into this position again by the club....big thanks to Mike Rush for his loyalty and willingness to take on the pressures of an acting head coach.

Nah. Smith did no more than what was expected and Agar reached eighth. If he'd finished sixth then maybe you can say he's overachieved but most of the low expectations placed on Wakey were due to him being appointed not because the squad was weak.