He does come across a bit of a thick in interviews too.

Listen, you're doing alright. You're entertaining me.

I don't go off rumours of what people are like without knowing myself. Rush is in a tough position.

The one thing that did annoy me was the 'we weren't far off' attitude after the last Wigan game. Anyone who knows anything about rugby could see this result coming. It is one thing backing your players, it is another to make such a ridiculous judgement. I simply hope he didn't actually believe what he said.

My biggest concern is whether he has the stones to stand up to players he's been around for years. As academy supremo he could afford to be chummy with the first teamers knowing it wouldn't give rise to conflict. But friendships go out of the window when you are in the hot seat. So far Rush has been ruthless with the kids. Both Foster and Gaskell have been out of the side for longer than any dropped first teamer I can recall going back through Simmons, Potter, Anderson and Millward. I mean, Foster made mistakes - but more than Meli, or Shenton, or Wheeler or even Lance? Poor Gaskell must have watched the game today and wondered how he could have been overlooked.

I have no problem with Foster sinking without a trace, but the treatment of Dixon and Gaskell does seem very odd. His period in charge is certainly doing nothing for his reputation, and maybe his "job for life" in charge of the kids must come in to question.

I really don't understand the antipathy people have toward Foster. Yes, he's made a few mistakes in defence. But defence is one of the easiest problems to address with a good coach. And Foster's blunders [isurely [/ican't outweigh those of several others at the club - including established first team pros.

For a guy with supposedly few talents he sure manages to cross the whitewash often. He's good with the ball in his hands, supports the ball carrier far more often than Gardner & Meli and you can always rely on him to kick goals. And let's not forget that he's yet to flesh out. He may gain a yard of pace - in which case he'd become a very useful asset.

As for his "confidence". I like that in a player. Provided he learns from his mistakes and channels that confidence in the right areas I don't see a problem.

Mike Rush hasnt been directly involved with coaching the academy or under 20's for some time.
Ian Talbot and Derek Traynor are the actual team coaches.
Mike Rush was and is, the high performance manager, which I presume is an administration role more about ensuring the right structures are in place to develop players, rather than directly coaching them.

Mike himself has said on tv and radio that he doesnt want to be directly involved in coaching, his skills lie elsewhere.
I think therefore it is great credit to Mike that he has taken on the burden of coaching the senior team in a period of crisis for the club. In essence he has shown a willingness to take a bullet for the club.

Sounds like the PERFECT candidate to hand the first team coaching reigns to for an entire season whilst the club is struggling.

To be fair, he has a lot of coaching experience. He was assistant to Daniel Anderson for a spell during a very successful time for the club, so he knows what he is doing.

The team have performed better under him than they were under Simmons. We've only lost 3 games, but unfortunately all of those have come against Wigan. Had we not had the Magic game against Wigan and we'd not drawn them in the cup, we'd probably all be talking about finals and how good we are. The fact we've played Wigan so often has just painfully exposed the wounds that were already there.

As I said on another thread, this season was always going to be a struggle. Losing Graham and Pryce and not even attempting to replace them with players in those positions was always going to spell relative disaster. If we can get to the end of the season in 5-7th position and exit the play offs quietly without a major embarassment then I'd consider that a successful stint for this squad.

The club would perhaps have been better served trying to get Brown from the Giants now, perhaps they did. The other alternative was appointing an out of work coach as interim, someone like Justin Morgan, Shaun McCrae or Brian Noble. The problem there is that their vision of how to play the game would differ to Brown's so we'd have two periods of sigificant change in a row and it would be very difficult to win games.

So is Rush's appointment just a cover up to let the non-qualified KC be the actual coach of the team?

Given the current state of our defence it seems he didn't pay attention to what was Anderson's greatest strength.



We've played better than anything we achieved under Simmons [ithis season[/i. But we are a long way short of the kind of play that got us to the GF last year. In retrospect Simmons was not the right choice - but we had far more attacking ideas with Gaskell the season prior. To be honest, I don't think I've seen a Saints side this bereft of attacking direction since the darkest days of Murphy.



Graham was irreplaceable. Yet even so - with Laffranchi and Flanagan our pack has performed pretty well. As for replacing Pryce, there was never any chance we could sign a player who could deliver similar levels of performance to that which Pryce achieved when fully fit. Hohaia has struggled since he arrived - but our problems cannot be laid squarely on his shoulders. The truth is our biggest blunder was [iallowing the Eastmond saga to drag on six months too long[/i. Had we fixed a deadline on his signing sometime around the mid-point of the season before Simmons we would have had time to find a scrum-half. With a recognised scrum half on the books there would be no issue. Gaskell or Hohaia would have a stable partner and we'd have a very flexible kicking game and the benefits of a Jonny Lomax not crushed flat by too much responsibility.