Possibly. I have a feeling Woolf doesn’t really coach attack. I think he leaves that upto the players. Maybe the recent open rugby has been from having Welsby in there given the freedom to play whats in front of him. He really flings it about. He throws plenty flat cut out passes even when it looks like there’s nothing doing but at least his variety keeps the opposition on their toes.
screaming in the family corner, scaring the kiddies
That may be true also. We will have to wait & see I suppose. Having Dodd & Welsby at halfback certainly lead to a lot more questions being asked rather than the basic 5 drives & a kick that had been served up by Fages & Lomax. It will be interesting to see how Dodd Lomax & a bit of a free reign for Welsby works out.
Yeh mate we will just have to wait and see. Cootes a good player but with he and Lomax in the team our attack is very structured. 20 yards out from the line the ball goes acting half, to 7, to Lomax, Coote wrapping round the back, then a cut out pass missing our centres to find a winger. With Welsby at fullback we will be more varied in attack.
The 2 trys we saw from Matautia at Newcastle another example. Would he have seen good attacking ball like that in the Fages/Lomax days??? I’m not knocking those two players. But they played mostly to structure. Dodd and Welsby seem to play whats in front of them and don’t seem to mind straying from the script. If Woolfs attacking style is as conservative as we always thought I can’t imagine these lads would take these chances, but they do.
I’ve got a feeling that Woolf coaches defence, attitude and physicality. What the players do with the ball is more upto them. I could be wrong though.
Last edited by fishy3005; 19th September 2021 at 20:13.
screaming in the family corner, scaring the kiddies
I agree that Leeds were well worth the win in the 2007 GF, but I think it's often overlooked that it came at the end of two years when Saints had played (and won) almost every week, having won the cup twice, the previous GF and the WCC. Plus half the team had gone to Aus for the tri nations in the off season. We were running on empty and Leeds (who were just coming into their own) took advantage. (Now the 2008 GF is another matter!)
Yeah it was a culmination of events but Leeds were not lucky that day, Peacock was becoming an enforcer and showing that special edge at prop after playing SR for Bradford. If we had Scully playing he would not have got it all his own way but only Keiron stood up in the middle that day and after half time he was on empty as Cayless and Fozard were missing.
We had lost Lyon & Albert, their pace and cover tackling was always a vital asset when Wello was one on one with space outside and Donaldson exposed that once the forwards had lost up front.
2008 was bad 2011 hurt more even though it was a blow out score in the end.
I don't disagree that Leeds deserved the win on the night.
My point is that we'd shown over the season that we were the best team but Leeds were lucky that we put in a performance well below our normal standards of the time.
Dewi Saint makes an excellent point about our players running out of steam. I think Fozzard especially had been well below par for a fair few weeks after starting the season on fire. I also think we were a bit complacent, perhaps believing our own hype. And, of course, we were missing possibly the best player in SL at the time.
Yes, 2008 and 2011 are the two that hurt. The first because (for me) we were clearly the better team but after Graham scored early we thought it was ours by right and let it slip and the second because I have no doubt we would have won had Wello and Shenton not gone off. (Although it did announce the arrival of Tommy Makinson).