Some interesting points at large in this thread. Saints now adopt the approach that we are willing to play the long and patient game and wear our opponents down. And it is working very well, albeit in an unspectacular style.
I think some of the criticism of Woolf is harsh. Holbrook was a magic head coach. He brought enjoyment back. From 2017 onwards, the Barba and Holbrook boost meant that we were the team to watch once again. It was the best to watch for years. But the uncomfortable truth is that the Saints side of 2017 to August 2019 simply could not play big matches. I think we knew what we needed to do, but couldn't execute it, and that may be because we priortised our style. The result was winning one major trophy from a possible five, which was a poor return considering our dominance. But, given the toxic atmosphere post Cunningham, it was the right thing to bring the entertainment back, even if we didn't win as much as we could have.
Following Holbrook was impossible. There are very few coaches who can employ his type of style, win most weeks and bag trophies (even Holbrook struggled with the latter). And that's before you look at his personality and connection with the fans, repairing the growing divide between club and fans.
It's something not many seem to want to say, but I'll say it. If Holbrook was in charge last year, we would have lost the Grand Final something like 18-4. Our defence wasn't as good under him and in big games we struggled to break sides down (6 points scored against Wire in Cup final 2019, one try scored against same opponents in 2018 play offs, nilled in first half against Catalans in 2018 semi final). We had the same problem in attack in 2020, but our defence was strong enough to win us the championship. I don't think its as simple to flick a switch from being free flowing every week and then defensive-orientated in big games to get the best of both worlds. If you want to defend like we do, it's something we need to commit to every week.
Woolf is fulfiling his role. The only way he can improve us from the Holbrook era is to make us more win more trophies. He made a good start by going back to back with championships. But to have that hard-nosed win at all costs attitude that we didn't have under Holbrook, something had to give. That was our attacking flair. In place of that came probably the best defensive side I have ever seen, but there's no question we aren't as entertaining. I think Woolf can only be judged at the end of his tenure. If he wins more trophies this year, then it's hard to criticise him. He will have turned a side that occasionally picks up trophies into a side that consistently does. If he doesn't, then more questions will be asked about style and whether it was worth the sacrifice.
I'm not trying to bag Holbrook by the way, he's my favourite coach of all time and will always be remembered as a great here. His entertainment factor was second to none.
It comes down to the debate on here for so many years. What is more important - entertaining or winning trophies? You largely have to prioritise one, and as a result the other falters. Under Holbrook, entertainment was king and we didn't win as many trophies as we could have. Under Woolf, winning is more important, we may end up winning more trophies, but it won't be as good to watch. Which side of the Woolf debate you fall on will depend on what is your priority.