Did Mike Rush do a good job as our coach when Simmons was sacked?

He did a damage limitation job, but one which was never going to be enough to win us a trophy. He stabilised things nicely, but once he'd done that it was a mistake not bringing Brown in.

It's not Rush's fault we didn't bring Brown in.

I find it shocking how saints fans can call Rush for the job he did.

A mixed bag, really. On the one hand it is true to say he steadied the ship soon after our season looked like imploding completely. He pretty much sorted our defence and the pack functioned more than effectively. We ground out results against all of the big teams - including Wigan (albeit in the last match). Insofar as our attacking game is concerned he went back to plan A. It was solid, effective ... percentage football - which did the job without tearing up any trees. I don't hold the charge of conservative football against him as we aren't blessed with enormous amounts of skill or speed in the backs. But it would have been nice to see us open up a touch more.

I have two major problems with Rush. First was his complete mishandling of the playmaking roles. It now seems patently obvious that Lomax's success at scrum half the season prior was intrinsically linked to Gaskell and the tactical options he brings to the table. Without a playmaking stand-off Lomax consistently looked like a fish out of water. Indeed, there were times when I seriously thought Rush was [iharming[/i Lomax's game, which is a serious charge to level at any coach. This brings me neatly to my second problem with Rush - his personal qualities which, with the best of intentions I'm sure, appear to have disenfranchised many of our younger players - another serious charge, given that Rush is supposed to be an "expert" at working with kids. I think his handling of Lomax, Gaskell, Foster and Dixon has been poor and their form has flatlined completely under his charge. To me it looks like he's become far too close to the older, established players - many of whom have failed to perform (see Wilkin, Gardner etc.) and you could be forgiven for believing a "clique" of first team certainties has developed. In all my years watching Saints we have gone through many hard times - but one problem we've managed for the most part to dodge - a problem which has led to all manner of troubles at other clubs - is cliques. As long as I can remember St. Helens has been united club with great team spirit and camaraderie. For the first time in a long time I can't say the same this year.

He did as good a job as he was capable of doing, but that was unfortunately not a very good job. I just hope the damage he's done to the careers of Lomax and Gaskell, as well as to the other young lads who've been denied any gametime under him, isn't permanent.

What damage to lomax?

Lomax has suffered a case of second season syndrome.

It would seem then that it's a mass outbreak because not one of the young players who did so well last year looked as good this year. Even Makinson has had moments this year that he simply didn't have last.

Second season syndrome exists only in the minds of Stevo and Eddie.

In his third (possibly fourth?) season?

As a scrum half mate.

Ah - so the undefined, undiagnosed disorder known as "Second Season Syndrome" now comes with additional qualifications meaning a player can be in his fourth, fifth - perhaps even his [iretirement[/i season and still fall victim? You know, a person could be forgiven for thinking you're making this up as you go along...

Exactly, we were in a mess. Swopping and rotating players, only playing 3 players off the bench. Players not knowing what there game plans where, unable to create player partnerships over games.
All Rush did was get the mainstream experience players to take a look at themselves and get back into a team unit, this he did with some degree of success. The half back situation was the biggest problem, was he working to a set agenda and constraint, opportunities were given to Swift and Jones the latter being the positives this year. Makinson was looking as though he was on the same journey as Foster, but I remember he mentioned something in the press where they worked on his game resulting in much better performances over the last 2 to 3 months.
The only negative is Gaskell, will we ever know what was the thinkings and goings on with this player. As for Lomax feel sorry for the lad, he has been the one player with the most pressure to learn and perform he really needed an experienced head alongside him and Lance wasn't it.

Playing 16 week after week didn't bother me that much. I thought it was a pretty bold plan based on at least [isome semblance of reasoning[/i (which is more than can be said of Rush's mishandling of the halfback roles!). Simmons genuinely thought his players were fit enough not to require the introduction of the final sub. I'm guessing he must have looked at the stats and seen some evidence to support this theory. Let's be perfectly honest here - SL is a very tough game and success is as much to do with managing finite resources (both physical and mental fitness) as anything else. If a team can manage with one less substitute (providing injuries on the day aren't too severe) and you aggregate the effect across the entire list of fixtures then, theoretically, you should begin the playoff system with a pretty substantial advantage over all those other sides who've been using their full compliment.

Unfortunately, Simmons never got to see his plan come to fruition but I can't help but wonder what effect it might have had come the playoffs.

Rush was a sticking plaster which worked better than expected but I think we got as far as we did because of a) the players and the effort they put in b0 the quality this year has not been as good as last year (yes I know Mugwump!).

I know of several young players who have played under Rush and did not enjoy the experiance; he concentrates on physical fitness and thats more or less it.

According to the Guardian "Rush, who is now expected to revert to chief executive at St Helens when Nathan Brown takes over as coach".
Revert?

If Rush screws up the business end of the club will we be treated to a host of fans rallying to his defence claiming [i"He isn't a Chief Exec"?[/i

I have to heartily agree. For what ever reason we'd gone down a real hole with Royce. The defeats to Hull (home) and Bradford (away) were simply awful.
Rush steadied the ship and, for a lower tier coach, did ok - finishing 3rd in the table, beating Wire once in the playoffs and getting league results against all the big teams.
He got the pack going forward again, which given the personel, wasn't the most difficult task, but it still needed doing. He tactics in the backs however, were non existant.
Dropping Gaskell was definately part of it, but there was literally no play book out wide. If you think of last season, we were getting decent ball to Meli in the centre who was putting Foster in regulary for well worked tries. We weren't pulling up trees going forward, but were better then currently in terms of backs play.
Gaskell might not be alex murphy, but he's at least good enough to be given a run this year, even if it was alongside Hohaia rather than Lomax (which would have possible worked better than Lomax Hohaia).
When we played London a few weeks ago, i was interested to see how Wheeler would get on in the centre, but watching the game, I'm not sure if he was given the ball once running in his channel.

Thanks for filling in Mike, but I welcome our new coach with open arms and keen anticipation.