I said it doesn’t matter if he gets it wrong 99% of the time.

You seemed to be the one suggesting the kick was lucky where it ended up.

I clearly state as you do the kick was executed perfectly.

I think Sneyd has arguably one of the most accurate boots in the game.

I don’t think it’s a 50/50. These are pro players not kids down the park. He puts that ball there on purpose. He backs himself to do so and did it. He picked out Farrell.

This was all considered before. Claiming he only gets it right 50% of the time I think is disrespectful to one of the best kicker in SL over the course of his career.

Now in your next hypothetical scenario

You say it’s a 5 out of 10 he executes that kick.

I disagree. I think it’s more an 8 out of 10. He clearly backed himself and got it right on the money.

Your next ones are very odd.

5/10 chaser has to beat Wigan player to the ball…both did.

5/10 jump higher than the Wigan player….both did.

These things happened he targeted a shorter player who doesn’t usually find themselves defending such kicks, he kicked it perfectly and both Salford got to the ball first and got off the ground first and got higher. All this was considered BEFORE.

The play failed because 2 Salford players got too excited or didn’t communicate and got in each others way.

It was calculated and I think in each case much more likely than a 50/50.

They were comfortable with our attack until Smith was binned because we didn’t have one!

We were doing 5 drives and a kick 1 out awful rugby.

Smith getting binned changed the game in a positive way for us as it meant French got his hands on the ball as he was anonymous for most of the match.

In that last 10 I am guessing he had more touches of the ball and more meters than the previous 70.

Pro players are looking for mismatches.

Sneyd created one but due to them getting in the way of each other failed to convert it.

French looked for a mismatch at the end to score his try I don’t think we score that or win the game if Smith is on the pitch.

We were far too formulaic in that game up to the Smith binning. French and Field then got involved much more and the style of play totally changed. We had momentum in the last 10 and actually looked dangerous, momentum was with us despite being 2 behind.

They needed to change the momentum and I’d say the scenario’s that you score as 5/10’s….were much more like 8/10’s which is backed up by the fact that they actually all happened.

Kick was perfect.

Salford players got to ball first….both of them.

Salford players got higher than Faz….both of them.

Unfortunately for Salford and luckily for us only one needed to get there first and get higher to what was a perfectly executed kick from a player who on the night made Englands best organising 7 look out of his depth in his control and kicking.

Edit - the kick wasn’t perfect. It was probably 3 yards too close to the touch line having watched it again. I’m thinking the plan was for MacDonald to catch it but that 3 yards pushed it more towards the Nuafouluma hence the mix up in who goes for it.

If kick was on the money Nene M would hand got it, where it landed he DN should have got it which I think he does if NMcd pulls out and doesn’t contest it.

Never known such an inquest into us winning a game

Wished he'd gone long now and we'd lost

Jonh, everyone is entitled to their opinion. However one thing is missing from your argument. You think we may have scored if they had kicked long. That's hypothesis. We did score when they kicked short. That's fact. By virtue of that single difference it was the wrong play. The facts say it was.

The point being made is Sneyd getting the blame for making the play.

It was in my opinion very good and clever play from Sneyd made in an attempt to close the game out.

The issue wasn’t Sneyds play it was the chasers.

I believe the the best chance of Salford closing that game at that moment in the game was for them to get the ball back in that situation and I think it’s a play that is successful 7/8 times out of 10.

From a Salford point of view all the difficult bits were executed correctly and the simplest element of the entire play was where it fell down.

I am glad we won this amount of scrutiny on 1 play in a game we won,just think if we had lost.

I understand the points you're trying to make but history shows it was the wrong play and Sneyd chose that play. It doesn't matter that it may have worked if x, y or z had been different. They weren't. The play failed ergo it was the wrong one.

I understand also that Sneyd executed the kick well but that was only one cog in a machine. Let me put it this way. If you got in a car where the wheels could fall off and the wheels do indeed fall off, are you at fault for driving the car or is not your fault because you actually drove the car well and, had the wheels not fallen off, everything would have been ok?

Stop it Phuzzy,just stop it now.Jonh will come back with another analogy and explanation and another question of lets say "if it was a hire car it could mean the hire company was at fault as it was a dodgy vehicle" etc,etc,etc

I appreciate the sentient and I see the point of view.

I’m convinced it was the right play.

Put it this way, and obviously we can only speculate because we will never know, but if they go long and we score, by the above logic going long becomes the wrong play.

And if my auntie had balls etc...

You can equally say if they'd gone long and we hadn't scored it was the right play. There's only one thing we know for sure and that's going short was the wrong play. Definitely. No need for what ifs.

Listening to the NRL 'experts the easiest place to defend ìs ur own 10 so I get why he did it. Well never know if we'd have scored if he'd gone long