Okay then, what went wrong ? After 40 mins where you couldn't see Saints scoring, with pretty much every Warrington player outplaying their opposite number, what happened after 51 minutes ? One thing for me was that James Graham put in a performance that showed why he was voted Man Of Steel, I thought he was immense, carried Saints at times during that game.

For the first 50 minutes how good was our pack ? It didn't matter what props we had on, Paul Wood came on, massive drives, great yardage. Rauhihi great, Carvell was very good. I thought Louis Anderson got through a tonne of work in midfield, looking far hungrier to be involved than i'd seen before. Westwood was immense, PJ had Gilmour well under wraps, Higham was dominating proceedings and we had Riley joining the line looking a real threat with a combination of pace and running good, clever lines.

Then, Carvell loses the ball, Gilmour races past PJ like Usain Bolt and minutes later they are in again, you can sense what's coming, all of us can. It's like a big ball of momentum is gathering, and Warrington haven't got a clue how to stop it. Minutes before, we mullered Saints in a set of six, one of the best sets of six I've ever seen (I know I'm jizzing over six tackles, sorry) but it was brilliant, seeing Pryce kick hastily on the last tackle and Penny collect it in the Saints half, but this looked a long time ago as we fell off tackle after tackle, and suddenly all over the pitch Saints were winning those battles. What causes such a turnaround ? Fatigue ? Mental Fatigue ? Saints 'extra gear' ? What is it ? What turns us from worldbeaters to chumps in minutes, seconds ? If Long could kick, the result would have been 38-14, meaning we'd have conceded 38 pts, in 29 minutes, sound familiar ??

Anyhow, it's bad to pick out individuals, but I think we should, a couple of shockers, but first the good ones ...

Westwood - You nearly don't praise him anymore as you expect it. Well, we shouldn't, I thought he was pretty good overall.

Carvell - Big go forward, big defence.

Higham - 50 minutes of class, then like the rest fell away.

Riley - Looks to be getting better & better. Could make that FB spot his own.

P.Wood - I thought he was great for the last 15 mins of the first half.

(Then you had folk like PJ, Louis Anderson, Rauhihi, Briers, King even who in the first half I thought did pretty well)

Then, the second half, people just fell off their game completely, lots of people just were very poor, played dumb plays, a few dubious calls thrown in but we basically just offered Saints chance after chance to attack our line and they in the end, made breaching it look very, very easy at times. Seeing Penny hauled off, well, I'm not saying he was good by any stretch tonight but the guy is being made an absolute scapegoat, and the bloke doing him no favours is his centre,

King - I thought Gidley killed him tonight, just showed him up. I'm starting to doubt what he's offering us. If he was sound defensively I'd excuse his poor attacking plays (like not feeding Penny 1st half), but he offers nothing with the ball and defends very, very badly. We'd be better off with a Stuart Littler type who you'd at least expect to do his duties.

I think Monaghan is getting a slightly rough deal from the speccies, he was hardly great, but when we had posession, I thought he did a pretty good job of providing the forwards with decent ball, ie little balls back on the inside etc. I thought he created enough doubt and his link with Briers early in the second half I thought actually looked okay. The last 30 minutes we were dominated so how can he influence the game.

I'm getting tired now, lets not just bag people, it's only one defeat, and lets discuss the game at length rather than just 'CRAP'.

One last one, great to see Bridge feature. Obviously still feeling his way back, I thought he looked tentative, and why wouldn't he be, but the withdrawl of V.Anderson gave Bridge his chance and it was great to see him back on a rugby field, lets hope that injury jinx is well and truly behind him now.

JWP, I'm not one to just go with the 'crap' summary, but I really can't find many positives from this game. We were further away from Saints tonight than for a good while.

There were many positives, Riley was excellent - that's it in tha backs.

Our forwards were very good, but despite being dominant in the first 40, we didn't score. You need good backs as well as forwards.
I thought Morley and Carvell were awesome, but they won't score tries.

I was annoyed last year with making too many mistakes, but at least by having a go we got some success. Tonight we scored a try which couldbe considered fortunate, and a very good try for a prop.

Where the hell are our world class backs?

It has to come down to a lack of match fitness and/or confidence. We seemed to just fall asleep after Rauhihi's try, and then conceded straight after.

I guess the easy answer is to churn out 'Hard for backs when the pack aren't dominating' and in the second half this is true. I would say that in the first half, we possibly didn't transfer our dominance onto the scoreboard and Saints with that amount of pressure, wouldn't have gone in just 8pts to the good, but massive credit to Saints defence for that.

I think our one 'genuine' world class back had a knee injury, I think he showed the importance of him, that bit of extra class, guile, nous, call it what you will, magic even. A flick pass that second earlier than Hicks would get it from Johnson makes all the difference, at times, I thought the only threat we had was Riley chiming into the line.

A positive for me, oddly this be, was Briers actually. I thought he looked fitter than I'd seen hm for years. He looked alert, ie, the tackle that got pulled for a knock on, he not only made the tackle, he was the bloke chasing after it and diving on it on the floor. (it wasn't a knock on for me either). He forced I think a dropout or two with clever kicks close to the line, and one or two other kicks pinned Saints in a corner if they got out like. I thought it was more like the old Briers, not the 2008 one, The old conjourer with magic at his fingertips & bootlaces. If we'd have kept the go forward, I fancied he'd have played a big part. I thought he was good.

Do you write novels?

In the first half JWP, we were dominant. We made 60m per set, and Saints sturggled to get out of their half, yet we didn't even look like scoring. Our backs never even looked like doing anything during this period.

No, I could though.

Somebody I was with said similar, He said something like "When we score, it always looks really difficult, like we've worked really hard for that. When they attack, the just glide and holes appear."

It's true, they make it look very, very easy at times.

I can understand you're frustration, but I think you're being too harsh. I was thinking that up until about sixty minutes in, you were looking very good. You outmuscled them playing reliable and basic stuff, no panic. You won't be the only team this year to let Saints slip away this year, because when they turn it on, not many can stop them. But I thought on the whole that you looked a robust and able outfit, and less of the chaotic inconsistency of previous seasons.

I'dlike to point out again.

6 tries to 2. This game was only close due to missed conversions.

In previous seasons we have pushed Saints much closer, so how do we suddenly look better than thos teams?

I'dlike to point out again.

6 tries to 2. This game was only close due to missed conversions.

In previous seasons we have pushed Saints much closer, so how do we suddenly look better than thos teams?

I think you may have a point there. I thought the team looked more methodical when attacking the Saints line, more willing to get to a kick and force a repeat set, as oppose to years gone by where you've felt every play was a 'must score play' with ball shifted left to right, then right to left etc.

You just seemed more solid. It was all down the middle, Bradford Bulls kind of stuff, but I thought it looked like a really composed, well-drilled unit for sixty minutes. In the past, you have run them close, but it always seemed like a frantic, backs to the wall, play your heart out kind of approach, which doesn't tend to work over a whole season. You just seemed so much more in control for sixty minutes than maybe in other games, and I remember thinking that you were looking very good.

I know it went wrong in the end, but Saints had to claw themselves ahead, and if you replicate that control in other games, I reckon you'll have a good year.

Yeah, I agree with that. Our structures looked beter, and we held the ball for longer which helped. However when it came down to it, our defence was as bad as ever(don't worry he'll sort that by dragging Pennyh off), and by playing a more conservative game, it unfortunately meant that we didn't get the benefits of the 'off the cuff' style of the last few years.

Not seen anything that's inspired me, put it that way.