It's the way they are coached, no doubt about it. They are lining up with Kyle and Gaskell two or three players away from the play the ball. They are clearly not being told to give the ball to them and it was very, very rare for there to be a second pass after Roby had distributed from dummy half. The only time Kyle and Gaskell were used in the attack at all was when were in their 20, which like the Warrington game wasn't rare, we just didn't look at all likely to score.

Kyle isn't to blame for the way the team is playing. It's too easy to blame him, but I can't see how you can when he's stood two or three players away from the play the ball and we go one out. What is he supposed to do? We are clearly being instructed to play like that otherwise Royce would drag Roby and Eastmond off and give them a rollocking.

If it's part of a process Simmonds is going through to deconstruct their training from previous coaches and then build up his own methods slowly fine, but it doesn't make for good viewing. If it's Royce's way of getting us through Leon's absence again, fine. But if we're going to play with that style going forward it's going to be a miserable couple of seasons under him.

Roby is one player who needs to work on his game. His dynamic running from dummy half is truly priceless to us at the moment but his distribution from dummy half was awful last night, so many of his passes disrupted the momentum of the forward.

That is a question that needs to be answered because all too often it felt like our halves were only really seeing the ball on the fourth or fifth tackle. Also there were a number of times last night were we ended up with a prop forward taking the ball up at first receiver on fourth tackle when we were in Harlequins RL half. Complete waste of a tackle.

I don't think we are well balanced though.

We have good, solid forwards, but name me one of those forwards that can make an impact from the bench. Puletua maybe? Scott Moore certainly can't do it and neither can Andrew Dixon or Shaun Magennis, it's not their game. Maybe it's something Josh Perry will add to the side?

As for the backline, it's incredibly weak in comparison to past sides thst we've had and I'd take the 2007 side which had a peak Wellens, Sean Long, Leon Pryce, Matt Gidley when he was playing well for us, Willie Talau and two younger wingers in Meli and Gardner. Shenton is a good addition and with good half backs he will flourish in this side. But Wellens isn't a top class full back anymore, Gardner isn't good enough (despite his good effort this season), Meli is frustrating and is past his best anyway, we don't have a full time left Centre (Lomax isn't a Centre, Wheeler always injured and Soliola is a back rower), Pryce hasn't been fit since last July and won't be fit until May at the earliest and Eastmond has been awful. We are incredibly short of pace and guile and for me we need to recruit and give the likes of Foster and Lomax more opportunities in their preferred positions to see if they can make it.

At the moment, we're a solid side but nothing much more bar the odd piece of genius from our halves and James Roby when they're fit and in form. Unfortunately that's been rare for the last year or so.

And how do you know that is the way the coach has planned it? On more than one occasion Simmons has said that they don't need to go one up 'anymore'. I thought that was a turn of phrase, but maybe it isn't? Maybe, with our halfback problems, the training and game plans and set pieces and skills work he did when he had Pryce and Gaskell at halfback have all been undermined as a result of having virtually no strike players on the pitch? I cannot see how after five matches, two of which we have won, one of which we drew, you can possibly say with certainty what the problem is. All we can say with any certainty is that we have one dysfunctional halfback, one inexperienced one, some very important players absent through injury, a backline that is too slow (bar Shenton) and not pulling its weight and a prop in James Graham who seems to think he should be a halfback instead of one of our primary metre makers.


Roby has gone off the boil in the last two matches IMO.

Because the line up is generally worked out in training, and the half backs staying wide will be part of that.

I'm sure Royce hasn't asked the players to leave their balls in the dressing room, but that appears to be what they're doing, and ultimately that's his responsibility.

There are far too many mitigating circumstances and it's far too early to be making judgements yet, though. We'll see.

I'd say Puletua and Soliola would be you're impact players. Remeber the salary cap is infull effect these days, so a 2006 line up is hard to match.

We do look a bit weaker at first glance, but I for one really rate Wheeler as a centre and actually though Lomax looked good there last week.
The problem is imo, it feels like we could have Greg Inglis in the centre for us, and we still wouldn't get the ball to him.Whilst I'm a fan of Wellens, I'd say on a few occasions this season his handling at 2nd receiver has slowed our attack somewhat.

I feel like we've got the weapons (Shenton being the main example), but just aren't able to use them

Do you attend training sessions then?

Speaking of which. They weren't half getting a pounding at the training session yesterday! Players shouldn't displease their coach as their coach always has the means of making them pay!

This is something that's been noticeable this year. Wellens is great at picking out good angles when we're working our way out of our own half, but when we're in the opposition 40 and we need a quick shift, the play tends to die on its arris when Wellens gets his hands on the ball.

Might that be as a result of playing him while injured?

And isn't that the coaches fault/responsibility?

If your name is Mick Potter, yes. Otherwise, no.

We picked up injuries because of Potter's poor training too, not sure what the reason is this year - perhaps some sort of adverse planetary alignment.

And before you start SaintsFan, that wasn't aimed at you

Two things: firstly, it's an injury he contracted last season which cannot be resolved by surgery but only painkillers; secondly, we have hardly any backup this season and so unless Lomax (injured on Friday) or Foster can step in, we have little choice at present but to play him. In an ideal world, his nerve problem would heal and he would be fine again or at least we would be able to slot someone else in but we don't really have an ideal world at present.

I think foster has got all the skills to become a good fullback. He reads the game very very well.

As for having foster on the bench, I just can't get my head around it! No team in the days of multi skilled players has a outside back on the bench. It's a total waste of a bench spot!

We have roby, flannery, Moore, Sia, wilkin that all can fill in the backs if needs must during a game.