Chapel House Motor Company Limited Advertising Banner
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 107

Thread: It's as if it never happened...

  1. #51
    In The South Stand Tez the Saint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    3,502
    Rep Power
    21

    Default

    This whole style of play debate has annoyed me all year. People saying 'change the tactics' and this sort of stuff, how? Why would we play a style of game we aren't built for?

    In order to play with width, you need someone who is going to make a break; a player who carries a threat and is going to force the opposition into a poor read. Owens and Peyroux are slow, forget anything expansive there. Lomax is a threat but down that right edge he is useless because any half decent opposition will number up on him and shut him down. He's a high quality player so he will create opportunities (see passes to Fleming and Owens) in more recent weeks) but a good defence looked at our right edge, saw we had no threat and shut Lomax down.

    Left edge, more likely and we've scored some good tries down there this season. Playing expansively without Percival isn't an option because the same as above will apply (they will shut Lomax down). Last night, Percival beat his man on several occasions and Swift was either caught or wasn't there. We have slow backs, we lack pace on the edges. What is the point of trying to play an expansive style of game when we have 0 threat?

    On the contrast, we have had a big pack and a decent spine. Lomax, Turner, Walsh and Roby have played pretty well this season, they're better than the majority they come up against. Walmsley, Amor, LMS, Greenwood, Thompson; these are all big lads and we've had ample territory most weeks. Offloads promote space, but that space typically will come out wide as defenders are tied into the ruck. How many times do we create a bit of space only to see Owens/Peyroux/Swift die with the ball? People think it's another one out carry but in reality, we've blown a chance because we have no pace.

    This season, the squad we have had is built to playing that style of rugby. Poor recruitment, yes. Poor signings, yes.

    But how does Cunningham use the players at his disposal to play an more expansive brand of rugby when we have a big pack, a decent spine and slow backs.

    We've also been without Percival and Lomax for large periods who are the only two with any speed. Granted, Greenwood should have played on the left more frequently and our prop rotation has been a bit meh, but how does he use these players to play a more expansive game?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Steve Prescott MBE (1973-2013)
    V

  2. #52
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk Blobbynator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    9,220
    Rep Power
    31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rogues Gallery View Post
    Gidleys is certainly a try. He gets the ball on the line before Lomax turns him over.

    http://www.rugby-league.com/superlea...h_report/13130
    Whether it was or it wasn't held up it should never have got there in the 1st place. Warrington were piggy backed up the field with 2 penalties, one of them against us when Ratchford dropped the ball and we should've had a scrum 20 out from Warrington's line.
    Quote Originally Posted by Despondent Dave
    Blobby is a man of style, panache and impeccable taste

  3. #53
    Moderator Div's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sintellins
    Posts
    11,911
    Rep Power
    32

    Default

    If we think the game is fixed we might as well pack in and not bother and I don't really feel that is the case.

    Looking closer to home some crucial errors cost us. A very poor missed tackle on the line, needless head high from Wilkin on half way, the shocking mix up on the 5th tackle, etc. to name but a few along with kicks out on the full, Owens knock on under zero pressure a couple more.

    Without doubt we got the rough end of some really poor officiating decisions. I can only put that down to sheer incompetence but also the try / no try rule which seems to tie the video refs hands for the most part. Surely that rule MUST be changed ahead of the next campaign? The reason the referee goes to the screen is because he is unsure and / or unsighted and on that basis how is he supposed to call it either way?

    Our game plan was clearly to keep it tight around the back of the play the ball area and tire out their forwards. At half time I actually thought it had worked and with our ( apparently) stronger bench I couldn't see us losing at the break.

    We cannot just point at the officials we were responsible for some poor plays ourselves that resulted in scores for Wire.
    Last edited by Div; 30th September 2016 at 14:21.

  4. #54
    Learning All The Songs
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Cornwall
    Posts
    2,287
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tez the Saint View Post
    This whole style of play debate has annoyed me all year. People saying 'change the tactics' and this sort of stuff, how? Why would we play a style of game we aren't built for?

    In order to play with width, you need someone who is going to make a break; a player who carries a threat and is going to force the opposition into a poor read. Owens and Peyroux are slow, forget anything expansive there. Lomax is a threat but down that right edge he is useless because any half decent opposition will number up on him and shut him down. He's a high quality player so he will create opportunities (see passes to Fleming and Owens) in more recent weeks) but a good defence looked at our right edge, saw we had no threat and shut Lomax down.

    Left edge, more likely and we've scored some good tries down there this season. Playing expansively without Percival isn't an option because the same as above will apply (they will shut Lomax down). Last night, Percival beat his man on several occasions and Swift was either caught or wasn't there. We have slow backs, we lack pace on the edges. What is the point of trying to play an expansive style of game when we have 0 threat?

    On the contrast, we have had a big pack and a decent spine. Lomax, Turner, Walsh and Roby have played pretty well this season, they're better than the majority they come up against. Walmsley, Amor, LMS, Greenwood, Thompson; these are all big lads and we've had ample territory most weeks. Offloads promote space, but that space typically will come out wide as defenders are tied into the ruck. How many times do we create a bit of space only to see Owens/Peyroux/Swift die with the ball? People think it's another one out carry but in reality, we've blown a chance because we have no pace.

    This season, the squad we have had is built to playing that style of rugby. Poor recruitment, yes. Poor signings, yes.

    But how does Cunningham use the players at his disposal to play an more expansive brand of rugby when we have a big pack, a decent spine and slow backs.

    We've also been without Percival and Lomax for large periods who are the only two with any speed. Granted, Greenwood should have played on the left more frequently and our prop rotation has been a bit meh, but how does he use these players to play a more expansive game?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I don't think Swift or Makinson are fast enough. I'm fairly sure Smith will do a good job. Faved to start at stand off and Richardson to break into the first team. Our two centres and full back are good players and the pack is very strong. I agree with Tez's post

  5. #55
    In The West Stand Dux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Liverpool
    Posts
    5,572
    Rep Power
    27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tez the Saint View Post
    This whole style of play debate has annoyed me all year. People saying 'change the tactics' and this sort of stuff, how? Why would we play a style of game we aren't built for?

    In order to play with width, you need someone who is going to make a break; a player who carries a threat and is going to force the opposition into a poor read. Owens and Peyroux are slow, forget anything expansive there. Lomax is a threat but down that right edge he is useless because any half decent opposition will number up on him and shut him down. He's a high quality player so he will create opportunities (see passes to Fleming and Owens) in more recent weeks) but a good defence looked at our right edge, saw we had no threat and shut Lomax down.

    Left edge, more likely and we've scored some good tries down there this season. Playing expansively without Percival isn't an option because the same as above will apply (they will shut Lomax down). Last night, Percival beat his man on several occasions and Swift was either caught or wasn't there. We have slow backs, we lack pace on the edges. What is the point of trying to play an expansive style of game when we have 0 threat?

    On the contrast, we have had a big pack and a decent spine. Lomax, Turner, Walsh and Roby have played pretty well this season, they're better than the majority they come up against. Walmsley, Amor, LMS, Greenwood, Thompson; these are all big lads and we've had ample territory most weeks. Offloads promote space, but that space typically will come out wide as defenders are tied into the ruck. How many times do we create a bit of space only to see Owens/Peyroux/Swift die with the ball? People think it's another one out carry but in reality, we've blown a chance because we have no pace.

    This season, the squad we have had is built to playing that style of rugby. Poor recruitment, yes. Poor signings, yes.

    But how does Cunningham use the players at his disposal to play an more expansive brand of rugby when we have a big pack, a decent spine and slow backs.

    We've also been without Percival and Lomax for large periods who are the only two with any speed. Granted, Greenwood should have played on the left more frequently and our prop rotation has been a bit meh, but how does he use these players to play a more expansive game?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I disagree with this, Tez, for the following reasons.

    Firstly, I think there's a difference between expansive, instinctive, flair rugby - which you're quite right to say we're not built for - and simply introducing a bit of variety into your play. We don't have flashy halves or athletic backs, but that doesn't mean we can't use the ball more than we did last night. They are, after all, professional rugby players: they can catch and pass.

    Secondly, while I agree that our strength is our pack, I think the approach we take actually ends up negating that strength. Because everybody knows we won't use the width of pitch, we end up playing against tightly compressed defences. Because everybody knows we won't look for offloads, our opponents can pile numbers into the tackle. Because we always kick on tackle three, we end up doing more than our share of defending in the middle. It ends up making life difficult for our forwards. You can also see our gameplan breeding a negative mindset in our players. When someone hits the ball up, nobody goes with them (a couple of times last night LMS or Amor got their upper body through tackles and looked around to see nobody there). On the rare occasion when someone does try an offload, the intended recipient is already thinking about the next play and isn't even looking.

    This means that when we come up against good defences we end up struggling to make any headway. Then eventually we panic and turn the risk-meter up from 1 to 10, leading to inevitable chaos. What I would advocate is that we settle for somewhere in the middle. Support the man taking the ball in. Look for offloads. Even if there is no intention to make a pass, this at least forces the defence to think twice before piling numbers into tackles. Use the width of the pitch, too - even if this doesn't lead to a break, it at least gives the opposition defence something to think about. You don't have to be Saints circa 2000 to do these things.

    The sad thing is, for a few weeks when Percival and Lomax came back into the team we seemed to be heading in this direction. As soon as we got injuries to key men, though, my feeling is that KC bottled it: he reverted to a style of rugby that's okay for beating inferior teams in league games but which is never going to lead to trophy success. He then stuck with that style even when we got those key men back. That's the story of the season for me.

  6. #56
    In The South Stand Paul Newlove's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,655
    Rep Power
    21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tez the Saint View Post
    This whole style of play debate has annoyed me all year. People saying 'change the tactics' and this sort of stuff, how? Why would we play a style of game we aren't built for?

    In order to play with width, you need someone who is going to make a break; a player who carries a threat and is going to force the opposition into a poor read. Owens and Peyroux are slow, forget anything expansive there. Lomax is a threat but down that right edge he is useless because any half decent opposition will number up on him and shut him down. He's a high quality player so he will create opportunities (see passes to Fleming and Owens) in more recent weeks) but a good defence looked at our right edge, saw we had no threat and shut Lomax down.

    Left edge, more likely and we've scored some good tries down there this season. Playing expansively without Percival isn't an option because the same as above will apply (they will shut Lomax down). Last night, Percival beat his man on several occasions and Swift was either caught or wasn't there. We have slow backs, we lack pace on the edges. What is the point of trying to play an expansive style of game when we have 0 threat?

    On the contrast, we have had a big pack and a decent spine. Lomax, Turner, Walsh and Roby have played pretty well this season, they're better than the majority they come up against. Walmsley, Amor, LMS, Greenwood, Thompson; these are all big lads and we've had ample territory most weeks. Offloads promote space, but that space typically will come out wide as defenders are tied into the ruck. How many times do we create a bit of space only to see Owens/Peyroux/Swift die with the ball? People think it's another one out carry but in reality, we've blown a chance because we have no pace.

    This season, the squad we have had is built to playing that style of rugby. Poor recruitment, yes. Poor signings, yes.

    But how does Cunningham use the players at his disposal to play an more expansive brand of rugby when we have a big pack, a decent spine and slow backs.

    We've also been without Percival and Lomax for large periods who are the only two with any speed. Granted, Greenwood should have played on the left more frequently and our prop rotation has been a bit meh, but how does he use these players to play a more expansive game?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    We're only not built for different tactics because of the dross Kc has signed, he is responsible for our style and I don't think he's got any other tactics in him as a coach

  7. #57
    In The South Stand warringtonsaint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    3,046
    Rep Power
    23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen07 View Post
    I didn't, I get that. But I'm sure you are not daft enough to have only just realised that the whole thing is a conspiracy on the strength of one devastating Saints result? So why have you been following the game for so long if you have those beliefs about it?

    Even if you think it is a Sky thing, they have been calling the tune since the early 1990s and yet you have persisted until now.
    Get your head from up your @rse for a minute will you. Where have I said it was on the strength of one result? Where have I said I've thought this way ever since sky's involvement?
    If you have no cogent argument, why don't you just shut up?
    Too fond of your own script you pal, now go run along and busy yourself writing this week's piece.......
    "The great fallacy is that the game is first and last about winning. It is nothing of the kind. The game is about glory, it is about doing things in style and with a flourish, about going out and beating the other lot, not waiting for them to die of boredom." Danny Blanchflower.
    Might have been written by a footballer about football - but never a truer word............

  8. #58
    Learning All The Songs
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Cornwall
    Posts
    2,287
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen07 View Post
    I think my argument is fairly cogent. Timing is everything and you made these comments on the back of last night's debacle. Did you mention anything about a conspiracy during our winning run? If you did I must have missed it so I apologise. You have therefore been consistent all along. Or perhaps you didn't mention it. There's a few on here who have chosen this moment to expose the great scandal and it just whiffs a bit for me.

    I remember you and I had a disagreement about whether it was worth bothering to go at all at one stage of the season. I argued that winning and entertainment were not the point and that being part of something was, whereas you argued that if it isn't fun or entertaining then it wasn't worth the coin. Then during the winning run we got along fine because you had nothing to moan about. I think myself a negative person but I have nothing on you and a few others on here.
    I agree with Stephen's argument. Personally, I enjoy it more when the posts are thoughtful, respectful and inclusive if different points of view. Which to be fair is typically the case

  9. #59
    In The South Stand warringtonsaint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    3,046
    Rep Power
    23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen07 View Post
    I think my argument is fairly cogent. Timing is everything and you made these comments on the back of last night's debacle. Did you mention anything about a conspiracy during our winning run? If you did I must have missed it so I apologise. You have therefore been consistent all along. Or perhaps you didn't mention it. There's a few on here who have chosen this moment to expose the great scandal and it just whiffs a bit for me.

    I remember you and I had a disagreement about whether it was worth bothering to go at all at one stage of the season. I argued that winning and entertainment were not the point and that being part of something was, whereas you argued that if it isn't fun or entertaining then it wasn't worth the coin. Then during the winning run we got along fine because you had nothing to moan about. I think myself a negative person but I have nothing on you and a few others on here.
    You're boring me as much as Cunningham now Shakespeare, so this will be my last response to you. Perhaps I've not got as much time on my hands as you seem to have as I don't post my every thought about Saints / RL on this forum which you appear to do.

    I do however speak to real people, not just names on a largely anonymous forum, who would confirm that I have had suspicions of "manipulation" (I'll call it that as corruption seems to offend your sensitivities) in results for a little while, but not sufficient for me to stop going to games......I've shall we say given the benefit of the doubt to the officials.

    Nor, again, oh literary genius, did I only give the example of last night's game but also of a couple of games a couple of weeks ago. There have been others too.

    Last night's however was so blatant I felt it was worthy of comment.

    As for our earlier disagreement, then surely you have proven my point? I said the game was about more than winning, it was about entertainment as well.......so why would I argue with such a pedant as you when we had undoubtedly changed our playing style to one which was far far removed from that of earlier in the season and which, unsurprisingly in my view, brought some fine wins?

    Now run along as I asked and put your weekly review on paper........don't bother replying as your now on my ignore list, I've had more than enough of your up your own @rse ramblings.
    "The great fallacy is that the game is first and last about winning. It is nothing of the kind. The game is about glory, it is about doing things in style and with a flourish, about going out and beating the other lot, not waiting for them to die of boredom." Danny Blanchflower.
    Might have been written by a footballer about football - but never a truer word............

  10. #60
    In The South Stand retro74's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    St Helens, Lancashire
    Age
    49
    Posts
    4,887
    Rep Power
    24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen07 View Post
    Well just so everyone else can see. I'm not the one who appears to be offended by anything. I just disagree strongly with what appears to be an emotional response to a shocking refereeing performance. Shakespeare. Literary genius. Pedant. As boring as Cunningham. I think most can see which way the insults are flying.

    Also, I don't necessarily agree that we did change our playing style during the winning run. Some of those games were just as tedious but we defended much better in my opinion. But I guess we won't get to have that debate.

    There's an ignore list........?
    He's probably gone a bit far there with his comments but I wouldn't take it personally, I appreciate the effort you put into making this forum an interesting read and many others do to

    I agree with warringtonsaint that there has been manipulation of TV games for a long time. It's what the big screen was introduced for and largely it works to keep TV games close 99% of the time

    The governing body and TV execs see this approach as for the greater good. If they can serve up exciting, close contests each week people will keep tuning in and new fans will follow

  11. #61
    In The South Stand warringtonsaint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    3,046
    Rep Power
    23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by retro74 View Post
    He's probably gone a bit far there with his comments but I wouldn't take it personally, I appreciate the effort you put into making this forum an interesting read and many others do to

    I agree with warringtonsaint that there has been manipulation of TV games for a long time. It's what the big screen was introduced for and largely it works to keep TV games close 99% of the time

    The governing body and TV execs see this approach as for the greater good. If they can serve up exciting, close contests each week people will keep tuning in and new fans will follow
    Maybe I did go a little far mate, but the guy just gets up my nose, like I daresay I get up others noses.

    I too liked his review and talking points, but not to the extent of having to read the other stuff, I can do without it.
    "The great fallacy is that the game is first and last about winning. It is nothing of the kind. The game is about glory, it is about doing things in style and with a flourish, about going out and beating the other lot, not waiting for them to die of boredom." Danny Blanchflower.
    Might have been written by a footballer about football - but never a truer word............

  12. #62
    In The South Stand
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    near leigh
    Posts
    3,057
    Rep Power
    18

    Default

    I think it was better /clearer/ easier when the ref just asked the video ref to have a look if there was anything wrong .

  13. #63
    In The West Stand
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    5,101
    Rep Power
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gray77 View Post
    How do you work that out? It would have been 18-16 with 5 to go. With everything that's happened between the two clubs at that ground, who knows what would have happened?
    Living in the past IMO. This is vastly different Saints side and there wouldn't be any of that dramatic come back stuff.....

  14. #64
    In The South Stand retro74's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    St Helens, Lancashire
    Age
    49
    Posts
    4,887
    Rep Power
    24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by warringtonsaint View Post
    Maybe I did go a little far mate, but the guy just gets up my nose, like I daresay I get up others noses.

    I too liked his review and talking points, but not to the extent of having to read the other stuff, I can do without it.
    Fair enough, if we all loved each other the world would be a strange place

  15. #65
    In The South Stand retro74's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    St Helens, Lancashire
    Age
    49
    Posts
    4,887
    Rep Power
    24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen07 View Post
    Thank you. I don't really mind it's ok. I don't see this manipulation of games theory though. I have seen loads of one-sided crap this year. Where I do agree is that having screens at televised games only is bound to cause an imbalance. That's where the problem lies for me but that is a giant leap from having the outcome of games decided by television executives.

    I have seen people saying that tonight will be fixed for Hull and others saying it will be fixed for Wigan, and previously people have said it is all fixed up for Leeds. It just doesn't stack up for me.
    I'm not sure the outcomes are always decided, although last night raised valid questions. It's bad for the wider game if that Saints side gets to a GF, they have been a disgrace all season with the way they've played and I'm sure TV don't want to televise a showpiece where no one tunes in

    I'm 100% certain that TV games are treated as a very different proposition to ordinary SL games.
    What is the main goal for TV companies? to keep people tuned in and to maintain high viewing figures so sponsors keep sponsoring and companies keep paying for advertising space.
    How do they achieve high viewing figures? By keeping games close.
    How do they keep games close? By having a big screen and using it to make decisions that keep the score nice and tight and the excitement going, most decisions are 50/50 and you could make a case to disallow nearly every single try if you want

    The question for me is why wouldn't they do it? What have they got to lose? Nothing, they make a ton more money by doing it and no one would ever believe they would do it anyway. Even if they were found out then so what? RL is a niche sport and no one of significance would give a flying fig anyway - so why wouldn't they do it? I definitely would if I worked there

    I work in a big corporate and I know how things work first hand

  16. #66
    Learning All The Songs
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    St Helens , Lancashire.
    Posts
    1,489
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen07 View Post
    I've asked this question a couple of times on here today but nobody has answered it. Why have I seen so many boring, one sided games on Sky this seaaon if they are kept artificially close by scheming broadcasters? Do the BBC engage in this kind of thing or is it just Sky?
    I'm no fan of Sky but for supporters to suggest the game is fixed is just wrong. Last night was just one of those nights with the added tension of being a semi final against one of our biggest rivals.

  17. #67
    In The South Stand retro74's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    St Helens, Lancashire
    Age
    49
    Posts
    4,887
    Rep Power
    24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen07 View Post
    I've asked this question a couple of times on here today but nobody has answered it. Why have I seen so many boring, one sided games on Sky this seaaon if they are kept artificially close by scheming broadcasters? Do the BBC engage in this kind of thing or is it just Sky?
    You asked me the question a while back when we had a conversation on here about it. New refs are not with the programme yet

    Also sometimes a team just doesn't perform at all so you have no attempts to give them the benefit of the doubt on

  18. #68
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Macclesfield
    Age
    46
    Posts
    8,427
    Rep Power
    33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnnyl View Post
    Living in the past IMO. This is vastly different Saints side and there wouldn't be any of that dramatic come back stuff.....




    You're back eh? Who's living in the past? Even at 18-10 the ground was nervy, and even after the no try we had another attack and came close. Had it been 18-16 who knows what would have happened? Maybe one of their lot panics and gives away a pen, who knows?







    I'm not living in the past at all, I'm one of the harshest critics of this current coach and this current style of play on this forum. Maybe you just decided not to read any of it.

  19. #69
    In The West Stand Ralph Fridge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Around
    Posts
    5,517
    Rep Power
    17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by retro74 View Post
    Fair enough, if we all loved each other the world would be a strange place
    I love you all

  20. #70
    Starting A Programme Collection
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Haydock
    Posts
    542
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Saint_Claire View Post
    What's irritating me is people who are saying get over it, we were poor and didn't to deserve to win, no flair, no imagination etc etc. This, whether or not it is true, is entirely immaterial. If the decisions given for three of the tries had been made correctly, we would have won. End of. No matter how we played.
    Claire, feel exactly the same over this and it's annoying how many on here choice to criticise performance,coach blah blah blah..... We did enough to win that if they'd simply gone to the screen.

    FWIW I know for a fact the chairman, coach and rest of the squad were all fuming after the game over the same.

  21. #71
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk Buddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    11,407
    Rep Power
    33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Smiggy View Post
    Claire, feel exactly the same over this and it's annoying how many on here choice to criticise performance,coach blah blah blah..... We did enough to win that if they'd simply gone to the screen.

    FWIW I know for a fact the chairman, coach and rest of the squad were all fuming after the game over the same.
    I'm sorry but this is nonsense. We hardly threatened their line and showed no attacking ability whatsoever.

    People are hiding behind excuses instead of facing facts. Tactically we were garbage and we were hamstrung by selection before the game had begun.

    If the chairman is upset he should look at his role in our season because unless something changes the crap signings like Tasi, Owens and Peyroux will all be with us next year and he shouldn't be looking at refereeing he should be looking at the worst attacking Saints side in 30 years

    Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

  22. #72
    Starting A Programme Collection
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Haydock
    Posts
    542
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Buddy View Post
    I'm sorry but this is nonsense. We hardly threatened their line and showed no attacking ability whatsoever.

    People are hiding behind excuses instead of facing facts. Tactically we were garbage and we were hamstrung by selection before the game had begun.

    If the chairman is upset he should look at his role in our season because unless something changes the crap signings like Tasi, Owens and Peyroux will all be with us next year and he shouldn't be looking at refereeing he should be looking at the worst attacking Saints side in 30 years

    Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
    It's not nonsense or an excuse at all, what are you talking about? It's a fact they didn't go to the screen for decisions that would have won us the game! It's not difficult.

  23. #73
    In The South Stand
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,522
    Rep Power
    24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Smiggy View Post
    It's not nonsense or an excuse at all, what are you talking about? It's a fact they didn't go to the screen for decisions that would have won us the game! It's not difficult.
    I wasn't sure about the Gidley try at first, but i think it gets on the line. We can all cry about the Lineham one, but you can only see it from the front on view, neither the ref or the touch judge could see the ball move so there is no reason for it to be sent to video, as much as we wanted it to be otherwise. You can give the If's all day long. The fact is attacking wise we were awful.

  24. #74
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk Buddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    11,407
    Rep Power
    33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Smiggy View Post
    It's not nonsense or an excuse at all, what are you talking about? It's a fact they didn't go to the screen for decisions that would have won us the game! It's not difficult.
    Of course it's nonsense, you've seen the video ref give try's like Linehams every week!

    We went 25 minutes without a single attacking play, we kicked the ball away (poorly) early consistently, we forced our only attacking threat to do donkey work in the first half because we picked the wrong pack.

    Fix those issues and it wins you games. Ask yourself honestly, if we'd played well would the vr decisions matter?

  25. #75
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk fishy3005's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    earth
    Posts
    12,154
    Rep Power
    31

    Default

    I had no problem with the Gidley try at the time. It looked like he got enough of the chalk to warrant a try. I didn't think the Lineham try was a try though. Its not like he was jumping on a lose ball. He just dropped it. I don't go in for all those daft belly button trys.
    screaming in the family corner, scaring the kiddies

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •