According to a post earlier in this thread you had: Shaul (Barba), Talanoa (Swift), Griffin (Morgan), Sneyd (Richardson), Bowden (Douglas), Manu (Peyroux) and Westerman (Wilkin) out. Saints equivalents are in brackets (some are debatable the Smith/ Richardson one in particular but it is easily replaced). Would give a team of:

Lomax
Makinson Costello Percival Grace
Fages Smith
Walmsley Roby Thompson
Taia Knowles
LMS

ASmith Ashworth Amor Lees

Though more likely we would see Bentley and Brown in there somewhere too (though I’ve not given any debuts in the team above). To me that looks like a team capable of playing the way we do now? Perhaps not as effectively, and the bench doesn’t pack as much of a punch (I think we would rapidly make sure we only have Thompson and Walmlsey on at the same time in emergencies), but the structures would be in place.

Structures at Saints (and Wigan, don’t know about elsewhere) are enforced throughout the age groups, so bringing in young players should never impact the way we play.

trouble is apart from barba most of our players out are better or more important to us imo, plus it looks like you maybe have a stronger squad, you play a different game to us, we have mostly played a power game rightly or wrongly with a team sprinkled with flair, its done us well the last two years but again for US these injuries have hit us hard, remember we hadn't done well for years then the last 2 have been good, get our full team or most of them on the pitch and we wont be far off, maybe to late this year but you never know,

Fair enough Mr Beetle, and then lose one of your starting front rowers and Percival in the first half. Perhaps not quite as good then?

But I don’t think things like a slow ptb (apart from when trying to win a penalty) and a static defensive line is part of your structure.

I think they’re more reflections of performance, which is to some extent down to injuries. For example, a less experienced or able player is probably less likely to win the collision, meaning no quick ptb in attack, or allowing the opposition one while your defensive is still retreating the 10.

More individual errors typically lead to more fatigue for the team as whole, as well.

But that’s my point? Whether it’s Barba, Lomax & Richardson or Makinson, Fages and Smith, or Costello, Lewis and Fairclough, Saints are able to play within their structure to the benefit of the team. This means that even though the first choice are better players, they’re not any more or less important to our chances than anyone else.

Hull are trying to replicate the early 2000’s Bradford sides and there’s nothing wrong with that, but if you have single players who that style depends on, then you have to look at how the squad is constructed.

After KC used to tell us how the full first team bar Smith would be fine despite losing to Leigh - Saints fans tolerance to that kind of dependency is pretty low.

…. if you'd had 7 players missing, plus 2 more by half time, I reckon we'd have won at a canter on Friday.

roby missed the game v wakey....and the winners were....wakey, so some players are vital to their team, if saibts lose roby going into the 8s they wouldnt be the same team they are now


imo

2 tries and 15 goals today for Doncaster. 3 tries for Litten.

Must play this week for me

Well you have now, enough with the name calling. Thank you

In the way you used it, yes!

I thought saints looked bang ordinary without barba last night. Had they fielded the same team against us last week I reckon we'd have won

Agree with you there Jake and also thought that St's got all the decisions particular in the messing about in the ruck/holding down and Wilkin should have seen at least a yellow for his trip on Tomkins which was a clear professional foul.

Although not at their best, I would not describe it as ordinary. They were better then Wigan in most facets of the game. One thing to note was the pace of the game which was rapid.


Wigan did themselves no favours with poor last plays and kicks

wigan aren't very good though. The defended OK but their attack was woeful.

I think they suffer from the same issues we have (not converting possession within the opposition 20 into points). They do however consistently move the ball downfield well (60-70 yards per set) as was evidenced against us recently.