I've never seen a Warrington side play as dull as that. It's probably the Lowes influence kicking in but it was like watching Bradford from 6 or 7 years ago. The problem is, the game has progressed since then.

Someone knows him well..........

I can see what you're saying, but the most successful teams of the last 4 or 5 years, us and Leeds, have played games based on a dominant pack rather than flinging it about like we did in the early Millward days. All he's doing is trying to recreate that kind of game.

It worked for 60 minutes too.

Whilst ourselves and Leeds may base our game on a strong pack we don't completely disregard our quality backs either. Warrington have some very good players outwide and they barely used them. Briers and Monaghan's involvement was zilch.

Yes, I thought they were boring. It was like watching Leeds on a wet day (when of course they usually win, but they are still boring to watch). I was so looking forward to some end to end stuff and the ball flying all over the place, like we usually get with Wire, but it wasn't to be which IMO was disappointing.

It's the first game of the season. You can't expect sides to come out and fling the ball around, except for [iThe S[/i of course.

True, but I'd expect a little more than one pass to the left, drive, tackled. Pass to the right, drive, tackled. Pass to the left, drive, tackled. Pass to the right, drive, tackled. Pass to the left, drive, tackled. Pass to the right, kick. Repeat all game.

warrington only had plan A and nothing else, i didnt see anything different to what they have done over the last few years, mess about at the play the ball, try to slow the other team down, grapple tackles and head shot westwood.
lowes and higham both said that they didnt get the rub of the green, higham said he thought that saints didnt win the game that it was warrington who lost it, what b!*^ocks.
saints moved up a gear in the second half, and i think that, if needed, they could have moved up a couple more

Gleeson wasn't playing and King was awful, I don't really blame them for trying to keep it tight, especially against us.

They were 14-0 up, they did lose it. If we lost a 14-0 lead I'd say that we lost the game too.

my point was that warrington could not match us when we moved up a gear, to say they threw the game away is plain stupid. besides a lucky first try, i thought that the first half was very even, you cant say that warrington where better then us in the first 40, ade had a foot in touch, and both jammer and cayless knocked on on the try line, a bit of luck to us in that first half and we would have been in front going into the second half.

Take the blinkers off