I said 7 from the starting 13, a subtle difference.
OK, Ma'u, Satae, Savelio, Kelly, Naulago and Carlos add up to 6, but still a big hit on the starting 13.

I guess your "excuse culture" is blaming Radford, or doesn't that apply to your agenda?

ps. We won both matches when Kelly wasn't selected (not that I wouldn't have played him), and lost both games when he couldn't have been selected.

Some people just crave attention

Slightly concerning if true, cookes comments in HDM

Fitness was also mentioned by the coach. That’s a player’s responsibility to be aerobically fit enough and if not make sure they’re taking the necessary strides to improve this quickly with the strength and conditioning staff.

Guess it would explain our consistent lack of intensity

I read that and also found it concerning.

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.

So you're saying that when all of our beat players are fit were better? No way

Overhyped at the start of every season to be found out within 4 games that’s the problem. Poor coach and average players with a weak mentality costs you

overhyped? look at your own team, struggled to beat 12 men, relying on another sin bin to beat wire, struggled v toronto and got beat by cas....who is average again?

i'll accept we were poor on sunday, but we will improve when players return!

So does Radford consider his current side 'good' using said criteria? Further, which incarnation are we comparing this 'average' Wigan side to? Last year's perhaps? Or was he comparing it to teams from a completely different era, say, the late 80s and early 90s by which measure no current side would come out as anything but 'average' by comparison.

Let's be honest here. Radford was being disingenuous at best but, more likely, was trying to put his own inadequacies in a favourable light by calling the team that had just comprehensively outplayed his own and, in all probability, will finish above it 'average'.

Seems to have worked on some supporters too. Just sayin'.

... don't remember LR saying Wigan are "average", where has that come from??

Shall we put this one to bed? We crossed the line 5 times Vs Warrington. They scored one try and never got close to another. We were down to 15 fit players in that match and were seriously disrupted by the decapitation of Powell. Just in case you've forgotten we were winning at the time of the sending off.

Struggled to beat Toronto? We beat them by 22 points! What constitutes a comfortable win in your book? How many wins by more than 22 points are you expecting Hull to get this season? In addition we were down to 12 men for a period in that game and still scored. Or does that only count for any opposition teams (who, incidentally, fail to do the same)?

Lost at Cas, I'll give you although we've also lost 7 from the last 8 on that ground winning 2 titles in the process.

I'll add an extra one to your synopsis as you seem to have somehow missed that one off. I can only assume an oversight. Beat Hull convincingly with a team missing Burgess, Gildart, O'Loughlin, Flower and Powell amongst others (just to even up the missing players excuse a bit).

If that's 'average' I'll bet it's average enough to have a fair crack at the title again this year.

...didn't Powell play?

He did “ccs” and he had a good game, much underrated player. like Danny works his socks off.

He did mate, sorry. I failed to recognise him as his head was still embedded in Chris Hill's forearm.