Edited for accuracy

Your argument is getting worse!





Saints camped on Wigan's line for virtually the entire match in the previous week and only came up with 2 tries!! One an individual effort at the death, the other a lucky ricochet. This against a Wigan side who were blown apart by Monaghan and Briers (no need for Andrew Johns

).



It was a forerunner for the Hudds game when they met the meanest defence in the league. They took a fair battering but still had the field position and at times the platform but they just had no one to pull the strings. But you continue to insist the presence of Long couldn't possibly have made ANY difference!!









(banging my head against a Red and White wall)

nobody can prove it,bit i still think long would have made a difference.i still think hull would have struggled to beat wakefield in last years cup semi, if adam dykes hadnt played.but i suppose we all have our opinions.key players can make a difference.

If it makes you sleep better thinking Long is a superstar and will transform Hull next season then fine. I happen to think the otherwise and so do the Saints board

BTW have you ever heard of goal line defence ?? Also what do you think Long would have been doing when Saints didn't have posession??



If you think my opinion is based on being a dobbin then you're a bigger fool than i thought







Also using a highly charged derby as a basis for genuine form is rather silly imo.

Could be worse, he could have been convicted for hitting a woman, driving away from the scene of an accident and driving while under the influence. And being a fat east hull

Doing agar's job you mean?

Yes you're right I bet he says all in Potter's training sessions. Just keeps his mouth shut and has no input no doubt.

Looked that way yesterday

I agree with your point about beaten forwards etc. however I think Long is a better player than Eastmond (at this stage of his career) and as such Saints may have performed better and taken better options when near the Hudds line with the better player Long playing. Whether that would have changed the result who knows.

Potter out I say.

Never said anything on this thread about Long being a superstar or what he may or may not do for Hull next season. I've been talking about Saints against Huddersfield yesterday, haven't you??

As other more balanced individuals

have said, who can tell what would have happened. But it is possibly not too outlandish to wonder if an experienced play maker might have made a difference when continually camped on the opposition line. We at Hull do have some experience of this matter.





Saints similar inability to turn pressure into points the previous week also has to be excluded from the argument because it was a "derby match". Now you're just kidding right? Is there anything else you'd like to exclude?!? Actually I think previous weeks form was brought up by you in the first place until you realized it didn't fit your argument!!



OK, I'll believe you, you don't base your opinions on being a Dobbin. It isn't true that the sole reason for your existence is to hope that Hull FC do badly. I'll keep reminding myself.



















Remind me, what do you base your opinions on?

Plenty of saints fans agree with you

Who cares. The point is that Long will have an input to the attacking play structures at Saints and that doesn't mean he is doing Potter's job. I'm sure he had an input when Anderson was there as well. Is he doing the coach's job ? Nope.

The fact that Long plays in a team that relies heavily on ruck speed off the back of quick PTB's. When this doesn't happen he struggles as does Pryce, (which also happened on Saturday) as they don't have the time or space to create. Defenesively he is also a weak link and working channel sets on him will pay huge dividends late on in games. My guess is that Nathan Brown may have preferred the more structured approach of Long rather than the quick feet and unpredicatability of Eastmond, but their forwards won the arm wrestle so it didn't matter.



Saints are only half the side when they cannot get any momentum and despite the fact the had some good field position and posession Huddersfield defended their line superbly and short of kicks to the corner (which i think Huddersfield generally defend pretty well) i'm not sure what more Long could have done to break their line down and change the result.



But hey ho .........

Hey, you just about did a whole post there without an arrogant put down of someone who doesn't agree with your expert opinions. Congratulations.





Come to think about it, with this combination of arrogance and vast knowledge, I'm actually beginning to wonder if you are in fact Justin Morgan.







Back to the substance, I think when he was interviewed in the second half, Long himself had some ideas about what might be done to address their inability to turn pressure into points.

How very dare you.





.....and with your obvious devotion to Mr Long i'm beginning to think you're Richard Agar

Lovely, I'll look forward to sitting next to you on a sofa after we've won the next derby match.

We may both be [ilong[/i gone by the time that happens

Yeah, but potter has already proven he has a clue and doesn't need someone else to put these structures in place. I'm sure he takes on board ideas from players and integrates these into his own plans where appropriate.



agar has proven he hasn't a clue and desperately needs someone to tell him what to do

I think you'll find I'm Richard Agar and I claim my £5

So when Long has an input to our attacking play will he be doing Agar's job ? Nope.

So if our attacking play improves out of all recognition it will be down to agar? Nope

I think Hull need to dump Jon Sharp to improve their attacking play. Can't see Long sticking to such a rigid structure like Hull have now and it would be a waste of his talents if they did.

Let's hope with an experienced organising scrum half it does - or maybe you would prefer it not to ? Most fans would hope and expect that with a better player at scrum half than we have now our attacking play will improve.



As for your original assertion about Long doing Agar's job by having an input to attacking structure - still wrong and always will be wrong.

Depends on the level of input doesn't it? If he ends up being the one dictating how we play both on the training field and on the pitch, with agar leaving him to do it, then I'd say I'm right and always will be right (In fact I'm right about everything as you well know)