I'm sorry but who decided on this tactic?

We've kicked a grubber at the end of every set in their half and it has worked once out of 40 attempts.

We've wasted all our possession.

It's pretty much the only way you score points these days.

it's the only way coaches know how to score if planned moves don't work.
The game at the moment is run by coaches who need to control everything. It is suffocating the game and if it continues for another few years it will kill it.
Spineless players are also culpable in this.
All the top coaches in previous generations knew that it's players that win matches not coaches.

It was the only way the team last night had any chance of scoring because we had no other ideas in attack, grubber kick and hope for a mistake.

I think the idea was link in behind Jack Owens as he's fat and slow so takes eternity to turn and chase. I think the wigan try came from this.

Pete trust me we would use the same tatic even if you had Bolt in your back line.
We are truely utterly useless and perform like trained seals only knowing what our trainer tells us to do.
Unimaginative, spineless and most of all joyless to watch.

I know the feeling, I'm a Saints fan

Once out of 40? Surely that can't be right since according to Phil Clarke, George Williams is the best grubber kicker in Super League.

He attempts at least 40 per game.

It's a shocking statistic that you are 3rd in the league and only 1 team has scored less points than you (Leeds).

I'm not sure this is true, I think some of the best coaches i.e. Wayne Bennett gives his players a fair degree of flexibility to play what they see. Even Melbourne Storm have got a lot more freedom in their attack this year.

All teams play with structure but the problem with your attack is you've not changed how you play at all in the last 5 years. Difference being back when Maguire implemented it you had the likes of Hock, Joel Tomkins (before union ruined him) and Hoffman as the lead runner with a really pacey Sam Tomkins out the back who could beat players on the outside. Now your attack has a lead runner that isn't as dangerous, so doesn't attract as many defenders, and a Tomkins less capable of exploiting that space himself. All teams have to do is sit on their heels, don't over-commit and then make the tackle when it reaches your centre.

The reason you the grubber so much is it's an inevitable consequence of getting to 3rd man in from the wing and seeing you have nothing else on because none of the defenders have committed. Given neither of your kickers are brilliant with the boot either, grubbers have a much bigger margin for error than crossfield kicks.

Any half worth his salt should be able to land a high kick to the corner on a dime. We seem to have given up even trying. Or rather, Smith has, as Williams has never done much high kicking. Whether Smith is under orders to dump the high kicks, I don't know. But it seems daft that, at the very least, we don't mix it up a bit. Especially after Manfredi had demonstrated his superiority over Ryan Hall, catching the ball above his head.

I respect your posts because on many occassion you state something that I hadn't thought of and you give detailed and logical rationale however, on this occassion we will have to disagree.
I notice you don't mention one SL coach. For me the game is suffocating due to coaches like SW, KC, Powell et al. The only SL coach who I think lets players play what they see is Smith at Wire.
This type of coaching goes in cycles we need a new coach or two to break this ponderous and pontificating approach to what is really a simple game.

Oh you flatter me! I think Bennett was the most obvious example, but I'd argue that Powell and McDermott are both pretty liberal coaches (in addition to Smith who you mentioned). Leeds, Wire and Cas are the highest offloaders this year, and I'd say all 3 play a pretty entertaining brand of rugby - even if it isn't always successful.

I think the difference between here and the NRL is that because the defences are much better in the NRL, attacks have to be challenging as many players as possible on as many plays as possible. Andrew Johns was absolutely scathing of St. George Dragon's attack today because they were just working for one or two big plays per set, and this is reflected in them averaging scoring 13 points a game. Saints and Wigan both do the same thing and average 25 and 20 points a game. Teams won't change their bad habits until they stop being rewarded for them.

The other issue I have with the structure complaints is that generally (at least in any team I've played for or coached) any structure has an "override" call. Structure is a framework for players to use until they see a reason to deviate. Go and watch the third try from Cowboys vs Bulldogs in the NRL this weekend. I'm reasonably confident that 4th tackle on an opponent's line (having just spread the ball) Cowboys' structure would generally be to get to the middle of the pitch - keeps the wingers up and gives kicking options both sides of the PTB. Thurston sees something last minute so rushes round to the blind side, gets the ball and creates the try. A poorer halfback (i.e. Smith) would have not seen that, just moved the play to the middle of the pitch, and we would bemoan how stifling the structure is rather than looking at the poor quality halves, who haven't had the vision to see any reason to deviate from that structure.

The same Powell who played a hooker and a prop at 6?
The coaches tell the halves exactly what they need to when and where. The halves are spineless and just suck up to the coach e.g. Smith
All that coaches concentrate on is the PTB and nothing else matters. Until the RL resolve the TPB issue the quality of the game will continue to decline.