Bet it didn't bore you in 1996 Challenge Cup Final or when we beat Brisbane in WCC.

We've had more than our fair share of success with kicks.

No.
He has got it according to Rush:

That's [url=http://viewtopic.php?p=18147435#p18147435TWO predictions[/url you've made. Both [uWRONG.[/u

You're not very good at this, are you?

Much like a winger trying to defend a perfectly placed cross field kick...that's gone completely over my head that mate. I haven't got a clue what you're on about.

I think he means that he did find Bobbie's bombs against Bradford and Long's kicks against Brisbane boring.
So as the majority of Saints fans were cheering great victories Mugwump was yawning and falling asleep from the tedium of it all.

MUGwump is comedy gold haha

Haha, right, cheers for explaining mate.

26-12 down, completely out the game, and the brilliant Bobby Goulding puts 3 huge bombs up for poor Nathan Graham, and we win our 1st Challenge Cup for 20 years. I can see why that might have been tedious for you Mugwump.

Surely people can recognise the difference between attacking kicks (Goulding's high balls for Graham) and negative kicks, looking solely for repeat sets ?

One is only looking to tire an opposition out and benefit from a tiring defence. The other is a genuine attacking play, looking to score.

What's wrong with tactical kicking to tire the opposition out? In every sport there are tactics that aren't exactly easy on the eyes but you can still admire and enjoy the execution of them. For example, in snooker when someone plays for a 'snooker', that can be seen as very negative but when you think about it, it's a very intelligent piece of winning play.

Negative kicks as you call them, can win territory and therefore games...so in a way, that's actually a positive.

I love rugby league. I never find it boring or negative. Credit to the likes of Sinfield who apply their intelligence of the game to turn the screw on the opposition.

Agreed. Kicking is a fundamental and, for me, fascinating part of the game. I like those territorial, 'arm-wrestle' type games precisely because tactics come so much more to the fore. It's not too pleasant to be on the end of it, but I think a half back really controlling a side and kicking a team to death is a joy to behold. FWIW, I also find those long safety battles the most interesting part of snooker.

Doesn't wanting to benefit from a tiring defence mean that it is an attacking kick then? Surely gaining a repeat set against a tiring side improves the chance of scoring?