of nature?

Don't know, suppose you could ask him for clarification if the force be with you.

None unless he wants the assistants job

Again I would have to take issue with some of this. We have played well against Bradford, Saints and the last 3 in succession. However I take your point that consistancy has been the issue but as I said earlier, maybe it's taken the signing of Gleeson, the settling in of Smith and Phelps and our front row finally putting it in to get to the point where we are. Those things have only just happened and so maybe it's the consistancy from here on in that is the relevant point?

That being the case I'm sure you're extremely worried about your own team given we've outplayed you on both occassions we've met this season!

Of course Justin Morgan will be coming to the JJB next year.
Who else will be HKR coach when they play their League game here?

we won the 2 prior to Saints we did not play well in my opinion, there is a big difference.

The important thing being 'in your opinion'. You stated it as fact in your previous post. In my opinion we played some outstanding attacking rugby although were perhaps a little too flamboyant at times and could have respected posession a little more. If you consider 40+ point hauls to be playing badly, then I have to say our definitions differ. We also played well in defeat in the previous Saints game, so once again I would dispute your 2 games. All opinions of course and you're as entitled to yours as I am to mine.

Do we really have to post in my opinion after everything we right?! Clearly as i made the post it is my opinion, if we put in my opinion after every point we made it would make for very busy reading indeed.

I agree our opinions must differ we should have put 60 on Celtic who were garbage, and Wakefield are a team at the moment way off form. We are improving or have been for the last 3 weeks but I would not say either the Celtic or Wakefield game were good performances, the Saints game though was an excellent performance and one i would not expect us to repeat week in week out as it is not realistic to expect this but we should expect good to average performances every week with the odd poor one and the odd excellent one peaking towards the end of the year. Instead we have had 2 excellent ones many poor ones and the add average one, i think our current league position with a game in hand over the rest of the league is an indication of this.

I concur.

(in my opinion)

No Jon, of course we don't have to put in my opinion after everything we write (sic), but when you post something as if it's fact then the distinction needs to be made...as indeed you felt the need to do in your subsequent post. I think it was fair to reflect this in my reply.

As for the rest, to say we should have put x amount of points on any side does you an injustice and to be honest is not something I would normally expect you to come out with. therefore I'll let that ride. Suffice to say it was a good performance where we did what was needed to win and win handsomely. Secondly, I think you'll find that Wakefield were actually going well when we played them and could have gone 2nd in the table had they won! Hardly poor form! In fact the Wakefield fans were confident about turning us over if you remember and their poor form has been since and including that defeat. Also you keep ignoring the 1st Saints match for some reason. Do you not feel we played well that day?

As for our league position, that reflects a poor start to the season, not how we have played over the last 4 or 5 games. In fact I would say our points difference in the light of sai position is more indicative of how we have been playing recently with over 120 points scored in the last 3 games!! Playing badly...yes we'll agree our definitions do differ. Please feel free to give me your view of how many points would have constituted good performances though. I'd be very interested to know!

Brian Noble is a very nice man. Not a ruffian. He was a policeman before he started coaching and he was always a gentleman as far as I can tell.

But Ian Lenagan is a very shrewd chairman. So I trust his judgement, which for now is that Noble is doing his job but Noble's position is uncertain.

We have to wait and see.

If we had performed well we should have scored much more vs Celtic, instead we were fairly poor but did what we had to, maybe that was a reflection on the opposition not us to be fair.

Wakefield were going very well up to playing us, the Wigan and Bradford performances show they are in a dip, by there standards that they have set this year they were poor.

I think we judge good performance differently, which is fine. I just by performance not result. I think we were poor vs Celtic, the display that they put on was (in my opinion) arguably one of the worst put on by a SL team in recent memory.

I agree the Saints first game was a good performance.

I think we can judge how far we have come from the Hull KR games and the Wire games coming up, that for me will be an indication of our chances this year.

I do not think that Celtic or Trinity games show we played well, simply that we won. Saints was an excellent performance.

Jon, I resent the inference that I judge by result wheras you judge by performance! First off, let's just say we are now up to 3 agreed games that we played well and not the 2 you first stated, so the reason for my post has been justified and confirmed. Moving along, you said that the Wigan and Bradford games show that Trinity were in a dip but prior to the Wigan game they were in good form. Now I'm just going to let you digest that statement for a while before showing it up as I'm sure you don't really need me to tell you where this falls down as an opinion! Moreover, to say we didn't play well in that game is an insult to my intelligence as, a few gifts aside, Wakefield were simply not in that game! Not only that, but we have been steadily improving since the first Saints game culminating in the Edinburough performance. Any fool can see that and to argue the Saints victory as some sort of isolated performance does you no credit. If (and I accept it's an if) we go on to have several more good performances from this point are you seriously going to argue that the start of the improvement was the 2nd Saints game, or do you actually acknowledge the fact that it's since Gleeson arrived, Smith and Phelps have settled in and the front row have been performing that the improvement has started. Now I know it doesn't neccessarily fit your agenda, but if you are trying to argue that Smith, for example, has only this week started to play well, then I'm sorry...you're wrong. Plain and simple.

LOL again!!

So when we lose its all down to us being poorly coached (according to you) yet when we win its mainly because the opposition played poorer than us. Ok Jonh,whatever you say,your becoming very boring now almost DaveO like.