they came a year after they won the league, or had you forgot that?

That's true, they did. My bad. I had forgotten, yes.

But I stand by my other point. Wigan were on the cusp before Maguire came over. Do you not remember us kicking them out of the playoffs at Knowsley Road based on a dubious call from the ref on Longy's try saving tackle over the touchline? Another ref would have called it a second effort. They were far from rubbish when Maguire came over. Maguire just did for Wigan what Anderson did for us. He tightened them up in defence and gave them set pieces which they executed well, over and over and over again.

And IMO thats all we're missing at the moment

sorry are we talking about the saints style of rugby, we have just lost our way some what

Defence? Our defence was fine against Hull and Bradford. Take a look at the final scores for confirmation of that (and bear in mind that most of the points conceded were conceded by Foster, so that's one player's errors).

Our attack came together last season after our defence so there was no reason to believe that wouldn't happen again this season. Our errors and lack of discipline kept killing us in that respect. And our lack of on-field leadership - nobody willing to take up the mantel from the now absent Jammer.

Yes, since Smith is Warrington's coach.

I'm sorry but we do not have the players to replicate Warrington's style of rugby, regardless of who is coaching.

I disagree, our defence is poor, it's been poor all year. Fair enough we've tightened it up in last two weeks but we are still missing tackles, we can't defend our line when under pressure and we've looked all at sea.

Yeah, sure, that's why we conceded 30 plus points against Hull and Bradford.

I agree really. Our goalline defence this season has been pretty poor. Everytime a team gets within 20m of our tryline the nerves set in.

Our defence has been crap!

Even the bulls cut us up at times and they had 10 players out injured and their main attacking player sammut out suspended.

I'd we defend like we did last week or they way we did against hull then I predict Wigan and Warrington would put 40+ on us.

The defence is all at sea, massive overlaps and our goal line defence has been as bad as I've seen since I started watching saints.

Whenever I hear the name "Alex Murphy" I never think of the player widely regarded as the greatest of all time in either code who spearheaded the rise of my club from utter mediocrity to becoming the greatest club in the game. I instead can only ever think of the beleaguered failure sitting on the sidelines shouting ineffectually at his team as they were overwhelmed and babbling semi-coherently in post-match interviews about it all. Please let this not ever happen to KC too...

Did you watch Saints under Millward? Presumably not!



Clearly you didn't watch the Hull and Bradford games either. Our defence was much improved.

Bradford's missing players are worse than the ones they had on the pitch against us (bar Sammut). They could do with their missing players remaining absent for the rest of the season. They may get somewhere then.

As for Wigan and Warrington (and Leeds) they are simply better teams than we are. Well, Warrington and Leeds are anyway. It wouldn't matter how good our defence was, they have the players and the experience to undermine it. Particularly if Meli is on the wing on Sunday. Christmas again for Sinfield!

Exactly. I do hope McManus realises just what pressure he has heaped upon his home boys and what failure might do to at least one of them.

Why harp back to the millward era which was god knows his many years back. I watched saints long before millward arrived.

The defence was still a total mess against bulls and hull. The is no organisation at all and a good attacking team will destroy us if we defend like that.

We are averaging aprox 23 points against per game Which isn't good enough when our coach stated he'd wants it at 14 per game.

Any team that moves the ball wide causes is trouble big time.

Do you think Mr. Teflon will accept any responsibility?

So then you should know the difference between the crap defence you claim we had and good defence. However, you appear not to and so you cannot have watched us under Millward.


It didn't look a total mess. It looked a lot more organised than in the two games when we conceded big points. And even in those games it was solely our goal line defence that let us down. But then we have two very eager defenders missing from our team this year and so the others couldn't hide anymore.


The coach said 16 per game to give a good chance of winning the GF, and he was right. And of course our average was high: we conceded massively on two occasions.


Obviously but there is little new in that. It's called having weak wingers. The teams have been clearly targeting Foster's side and it has worked for them. They don't go so much to Makinson's side because Makinson is better defensively.

Nope.

St Pete.Is there anything you see as a positive with our team at the moment.I have lived through a few of these times.We are a fantastic club and have been all of my life and I am 60.I expect us to be the same for the rest of my life.We will come through this period,we have some fabulous young kids that are now playing in SL.I like some of the things you put on this board but you are so negative at the moment.I gather you did not like Simons.I also think he was part of the problem.He is not with us now,I know you are happy about that.I will put my trust in the people that are running the club at the moment.Belive me we have had some real prats running Saints at times and we have survived them.We are at the begining of a new era at the club and probably the most exciting of my time watching Saints.You carry on having your say and do it with the passion I see you have for the club.

Thanks.

Yes I do see positives still at the club like the young lads we have in Gaskell, lomax, foster, wheeler, makinson etc but young lads of this age don't have the confidence to go out and express themselves and that's when a a good structure is needed and organisation and it's clear Royce had no structure or organistsion.

I'm not saying we will be back to playing proper rugby league straight away now Royce has gone but from knowing some of the saints lads I think they agree that McManus was correct in sacking Royce because we couldn't go the way we was.

That's not clear at all. What IS clear is that there was no on field leader.


Whereas Wello seemed to more than suggest that the young guys were upset at the loss of Royce. After all, Royce showed faith in them and gave them their opportunities in the first team on a consistent basis.

Everyone seems to have forgotten all of a sudden that we had already lost Jammer and Robes was out injured for three weeks. That leaves nobody organising up front.

That's very true about the young lads, after all Royce stuck by some of them especially lee Gaskell who Royce picked before Leon pryce at play off time last year and that's one of the callsi really respect Royce for.

I also agree we ain't got a leader on the field and it's been a massive problem thus year, jammer and pryce (when he actully played) was very talkative on and off the field and we ain't got that this year.

Surly Royce knew that jammer and pryce was two strong leaders for us butcstill didn't bring and leaders in to replace them.

Royce wanted a prop but was told the money wasn't there. He suggested the best recruitment for the team and that is what Mr Big recruited. You've moaned and whinged about Hohaia being recruited for instance and yet the last few weeks has proven why he was necessary. Had Robes not been injured then he would have been playing in the halves and it's very likely we would have been looking at more wins than losses as Gaskell would have been rested.

It's not Royce's fault if there isn't a leader among our team. He hasn't been responsible for the recruitment policy of the last 10 years.

Never ever ever moaned about lance hohaia. Find me a post where I've bagged him or laffranchci for that matter.

I've said they are playing out of postion and I'd preferred Royce had brought in a scrum half and prop instead of a fullback and backrow but never have I critised them personally.

You have never moaned about Lance Hohaia? The fullback who isn't a halfback at all ever?

You must have done your moaning when drunk then Pete.


And Royce said at the time that there were no halfbacks available. There weren't. You can't recruit someone when they simply aren't there.

Like I said, I've never called hohaia, I've said he's not a halfback and it was wrong of Royce to expect him to play there.

Hull signed Seymour who's a halfback, Widnes signed two in hanbury and watts and both look pretty useful.

Everyone took Simmons word that the was no halfbacks about and it was this time last year that we was told Kyle was going.

Come to think about it, lance wasnt available, he had another year on his contract meaning we specifically went for him.