Now this is quite interesting. The roles do seem to have reversed somewhat. We've had years of Saints fans telling us they'd rather lose playing attacking rugby than win with the largely defensive, "strangle the life out if the opposition" style we've had over the last decade or so. I wonder how many will change their tune now it's the opposite way around?

Most Saints fans have been very happy with how we have attacked in the first couple of rounds of this year. Lots were critical of "Woolfball" particularly at the start of last year, but I think people are realising with Coote/Lomax/Fages a very structured attack was the way Woolf chose play, but now with Welsby/Lomax/Dodd theyre getting more freedom and scoring some really nice tries. Everything is built on defense and building the right structures, but I don't think any Saints fans I know of resent that particularly.

It’s still very entertaining in my opinion but different. I’m not sure Saints fans would’ve been saying that about a similar Wigan attack in that period from Maguire coming in, to the point Wane left but people find different things entertaining. Saints smash the life out of teams and pick holes in tired defences. It’s quite methodical and without much risk outside of the opposition 30 but there’s enough individuals brilliance to make it work and make it entertaining.

I can't speak about Wigans Wane era attack (my memory isnt what it once was!) but we have been good value for offloads, breaks and creative play so far this year. Of the 12 tries we have scored so far, 2 have been kicks through with the kicker backing themselves, an outrageous dummy/step from Dodd and 5/12 coming from 30-40m out. I think were also pretty even for tries in the first half and second half so not totally dependent on tired pitches. Definitely an improvement on last year, but as I say, Coote/Lomax/Fages are going to play a very different game to Welsby/Lomax/Dodd.

I will say its fair we havent scored from beyond halfway yet this season, but we have also been missing Grace who would be our biggest threat for those sort of tries. Hurrell did score the final try against Catalan from 40m out, but did look if it was much further that he was going to pass out!

Even with no defender in front of him, he was looking round for a team-mate to pass to!

Wigan’s attack under Wane in 2012 and 2013 was fantastic at times, with Sam Tomkins, Charnley etc coming up with bits of magic guys like Welsby and Dodds will try and emulate (I think Welsby said Tomkins was his hero growing up) but it still got criticised as being too structured. Saints have faced some of that over the past couple of years but personally im not just entertained by try’s being score from deep or ones on the end of unstructured play.

There’s no doubt been a change in the style of play at Saints though and to one that some Saints fans have pulled Wigan apart for at times.

Oh, I'm not criticising it mate. It's very effective and, for me, can still be highly entertaining when done right. I just remember that it was criticised like a bad smell when Wigan played that way. It was particularly noteworthy through the Madge era and first year of Wane's era when we were actually playing highly entertaining rugby. That first year under Wane was light years above anyone else, even though we fell away after winning the LLS.

I remember having discussion after discussion with Saints fans (who used to come on in greater numbers back then) and, almost to a man, they called it dull, boring etc. As I said, I'll be very interested to see how it's viewed over on RedVee now it's Saints preferred methodology.

Better than the 86 Kangaroos

You can be brutal in defence and still entertaining in attack. I think Saints have a good balance currently with lots of exciting players in the backs and some destructive forwards ball in hand.

Early Woolf was more difficult to watch but I think that was as much about playing to the strengths of a spine lacking pace.

I think some of the ciriticism of Wgan under Wane / Maguire was based on what was perceived to be a cynical and at times over-aggressive approach. I can't imagine Woolf ranting and raving about giving his players permission to be reckless for example. As I recall most of the criticism of boring rugby came from Wigan fans not Saints fans.

Wigan in recent years have pretty much always had an exciting back three with lots of pace.

I agree that you can and I certainly never said otherwise. It's Saints fans reaction to the change towards something they once derided that interests me.

It was definitely Saints fans calling it boring. I should know as I had many a discussion on here about it. You had no complaints about boring rugby from Wigan fans during the Madge era or Wanes first year in charge when we were completely dominating.

I can't say for sure (I'll have to check if I get a moment) but if memory serves you were one of the ones highly critical of Wigan during that era.

You have a better memory than me! I certainly thought Wigan could be a pretty cynical team which overstepped the mark at times (don't think I was alone in that) and like many I also thought Maguire brought a defensive style to the league (since widely replicated, including at Saints) which served to slowed the game down and (in my opinion) dilute it as a spectacle. PTB speed is still slow today compared to where it was which, in my view, remains a shame whether or not it is my team winning the pots.

he brought an aussie defence with him, are you saying the NRL is slow and diluted?

I think that was pretty much your opinion expressed at the time too. It's interesting that, as you say, everything that Wigan did back then has been adopted by pretty much every other team. Whether that's a good thing or not is, I suppose, down to personal preference. My opinion at the time was that no sport stays the same and once a given genie is out the bottle it's near impossible to put back. I remember one Saints fan (don't think it was you this time) that said if Saints ever started to play that way he'd stop watching (sic). I'd be interested to see if he's been appalled by Saints' recent success which has largely been built on the principles he derided when it was Wigan?

A couple of points
Daniel Anderson & Nathan Brown brought their own Defensive techniques/systems into the British game way before Maguire did, this brought a slowing down of the PTB etc.
Maguire brought adaptations of that and some of the Melbourne systems to supplement that - It only apparently became a problem at that point (Wonder why)

As most people know - I don't buy totally into the Wigan became Boring under Wane etc. theory - I think its a more nuanced conversation than that
But Saints 2020/21 very much have a synergy to Wanes teams of 14-18 built around strangling teams etc.
The 2022 version of Saints is yet to be decided IMO albeit they retain without a doubt the defensive capabilities of the teams of the last 3 years (If not better).

Under Wolf, as Nicky Kiss alludes to on another thread, Saints (And some other teams) have pushed the boundaries of professionalism/Cynical play, feigning injury, getting the game stopped at the point you want it to, to gain a penalty for nothing more than a fleeting touch above the shoulder etc.

And here's the crux, fans don't think it's a problem when they're winning/doing it better than anyone else, but when someone else does it it's Boring/Cheating/wrong etc. (Applies to fans of all clubs)
And Saints fans were very much critical of Maguire/Wane 2010-18 - Yet have and are praising the Saints teams of 2020-2022 for playing in a very similar way.

Yes, all very true. I think the recent Saints success is pretty much a blueprint of the Wigan teams of that era. Quick line speed and aggressive defence strangling the life out if the opposition and then we'd burn them with what became known as "the move" Saints have added the Walmsley factor to that (our big metres always came from the back row as they do to this day) and "the move" may be less effective than it once was so is used more sparingly but otherwise it's pretty much built on the same principles.