I'd rather trawl through the contents of an elephants bowels.

I think you just lost any argument you had.

signed

Actually, your reply, being the weakest counter-argument in the history of counter-arguing, just won it for me.

but 10 years ago, you were turning up most weeks to see saints put 50-60 on teams like halifax and oldham. That's entertaining once in a while, but every other week? Winning at a canter is not what I want. Thats probably why there was more flair when the big teams met, because they were used to flinging the ball around.

I'm afraid all that you bemaon is the effects of proffessionalism. Its the same reason we don't get as many fights these days.

I personally like a good arm wrestle of a game, but we have (for whatever reason) gone a bit far with how much the play the ball has been slowed, or just failed to cope with the change.
However, in the next couple of years, the crafty half backs may get to grips with playing aginst this type of defences.

I agree. I think it has perhaps slowed down too much, but it'll probably take time for teams to adjust and for halfbacks to develop their craft according to the defence. Personally I found 42-26 type scorelines deeply frustrating, as they usually came about due to poor execution from both sides rather than excellence.

I agree that we do not want to be seeing those one-sided romps but that wasn't the case every week was it? Certainly in the early 1990s it wasn't. We saw many a close game that still allowed for attacking rugby league rather than stagnating, dour, defensive tactics.

At least when the Australians went down that road in the 1980s, the pundits and the fans had the honesty and brains to take their heads out of the sands and see that the 4-2 close games were not entertaining because they were close, they were dour because they were playing safety first, dour rugby.

What we are now seeing is a football eqiavalent of 0-0 and 1-0 results with minimal chances per game and a dour midfield struggle as opposed to 3-3 attack minded draws with chances at both ends and great attacking play. There might have been the odd 5-1 but at least it was with goals, entertainment and thrilling passages of play.

That's the difference you see. Football and even Rugby Union are trying to go and play more open, adventurous football, Rugby League is going the opposite way and it is not going to attract any new fans whatsoever.

I'd like to think that crafty half backs will get to grips with it but, with the game as it is, unfortunately, there won't be any crafty half backs because the evolution of the game will have negated their need. How many crafty half backs does the game have in this country and I mean proper artists like Andy Gregory or Bobbie Goulding were in their prime? The likes of Shane Cooper wouldn't last five minutes these days.

Seventeen robots. That's what we've got.

DD is right.

The game is going progressively more boring and has done soince 2006 since Saints won the lot.

Just about every team runs the same move, and the ridiculously slow PTB has meant that there is the worst of both worlds:

The game has become a turgid, sloppy game that is a parody of muddy pitches in Batley. It is compounded by the over use of interchanges that means the defensive line that rarely stretched because fitness and stanima are in effect redundent, being instead servants to 'power' and 'impact.'

Saints have been dour this year, reflecting the character of their coach; but then again have many other teams been better?

Leeds opened the season with a thoroughly uninspiring victory against Celtic who they should have put 70 on.

Most games have had the same pattern about them.. Plough, plough plough... kick to the corner and try. It is rubbish, quite frankly.

Give me Roy Hagg's offloads, Harry Pinner's brains, Neil Holding's darts and Barrie Lager's speed... At least this was a brand of rugby that depended on variation. And it was one where there were not 17 players, for the most, who could play most positions on the field.

Unfortunately we have gone from a SL that was entertaining but flawed due to an over emphasis - rule wise - on attack, to one that is listless due to an over emphasis on defense.

The play the balls when the players you mentioned played were ten times slower than they are now. there was loads of garbage at the ruck. Ball stealing, striking for the ball etc. It was a mess. They also played when the defence went back 5 metres not ten. I think you're looking back with rose tinted glasses.

We want half backs as creative as those you mention. We're taking measures to try and create that. Yet you're railing against those measures.

I also still maintain there's a degree of that age old Saints fans' arrogance in all of this. Of course, it just could be a coincidence that this despondency comes after the first year you win no silverwear and on the back of your golden era which "experts" tell us is likely over (I don't believe that but I suspect you will).

Revealing comment.

Why? That season Saints won everything, but is was boring compared to the yesteryear of 1989 and getting to wembley...

I think that says a lot about Saints fans deciding the game is now boring.

Such a lazy and sloppy mentality.

We have come 2nd in the league and had a decent season given that noone thought we would do anything.

The main chagrin is that the rugby was hopelessly dour and crashingly boring to quote a famous Manchester miserablist.

and pray tell how many times was Jon Wilkin holding down at the play of the ball? Not just the Grand Final but throughout the season? Or third man into the tackle just to slow it down a tad....

Pot, kettle, black eh?????

Just to enlighten you, this is not the point.

The point in question is the style of the game being played.

Wilkin, like many others, is playing to the interpretaion of the rules of the game at present. No matter who perpetrates it, it creates a poor spectacle.

Leeds fans calling Saints fans arrogant.

Excellent jest.