Quote: Jake the Peg "But it's not 6 (or 7) from the starting 13. kelly hasn't played a game even when available, satae and savelio both started on the bench when we were at full strength. Ma'u I'll give you but carlos and ratu, whilst both probably in my starting 13, aren't guaranteed starters and both in the mix with griffin, connor, swift, fairamo and fonua for places in the outside backs. Losing 2 of those 7 doesn't significantly weaken us so doesn't back up your point.
How many did saints have missing when we played them or wigan on Sunday? Or do we disregard the opposition injuries and suspensions?
radford is definitely part of the culture at the club so yes he is partly to blame to me.
Not sure what your point is re kelly - when he doesn't play we win some and lose some?'"
Let's try a different approach, if Ma'u, Satae and Savelio had played (instead of Fash, Lane and Masi), I reckon we'd have had a good chance of winning.
They didn't, and the result was what I fully expected.
Conner has proved again (even in the first 2 games) that he is not a no 6.
Had Kelly played in the last 2 games I'm sure our chances of winning those games would have been significantly better, but LR didn't have that option.
As far as Saints missing players, they haven't signed anyone since last season, their strength in depth got them thru' in 2019 unscathed, apart from 3 games when they fielded very weakened teams against opposition they would normally have beaten with ease.
Yes, even Saints lose games when too many players are missing.
They've already got a squad which can cope with injuries and haven't suffered the disruption of signing lots of new players which inevitably takes time to settle.