Oh come on, I am not the biggest fan of KC as a coach but you can't critizise him for taking a stance of win at all costs last night. Friday night in Hull, a city in which we seldom win, with a teenager in the centres and halves. We were never going to blow Hull off the park, we just had to do what it takes even if that was at times ugly.

This was the Hull who turned over Warrington.

Some people are just impossible to satisfy.

"The two points came after the Saints had spent most of the afternoon on the M62, their coach arriving by the Humber just five minutes before the start of the warm-up owing to traffic."

IMO two even teams. Draw would have been a fair result and the forward battle was at times brutal. Thought your scramble defense was very good. Roby and burns made you tick last night

I'm glad to hear that Burns took the game by the scruff of the neck. I hope it continues when Wilkin is back.

The stick that KC is getting on here and especially on the other forum is just daft if you ask me. Our attack seems to be a little toothless at the moment, but I'm not sure what people expect when our two most instinctive attacking players (Walsh and Lomax), two of our best attacking back rowers (Vea and Greenwood) and our best attacking centre are all sitting in the stand.

The vibe on the forums reminds me of the first two thirds of 2006. Everyone was skriking about Saints playing dull rugby then as well. If this season ends up anything like that one then I'll take that.

I totally agree and last night was a great result. I wasn't confirdent at all if im being honest.

We've had Vea, percy, greenwood all missing from our edge attack which was very good at the start of the year. All three of them was busting tackles on the edges and we've lost that.

Obvously walsh is massive lost and don't neee to go into that.

We've been a boring side for long time now. Injuries or no injuries we was boring before KC, we was boring with Brown, boring under Rush, boring under Royce and very very boring under Potter.

The days of us plsying champaign rugby have well gone when the likes of newy, scully, longy, kc and co went. No team plays that type of rugby anymore on a regular basis. Like other teams, we have our moments but ultimatey we are not great to watch.

This is the reason Id like to see us try and get a good strike player in the backs. Someone that can make a break out of nothing and be a go to player. Finding one is hard and with the money in the NRL it's hard to bring one over.

The 2006 team was a once in a lifetime team, and today's salary cap, plus draw from RU and the NRL means we won't see anything similar for a long time. We were also the entertainers in the 70s and 80s, when we were the perennial bridesmaids, Id really prefer not to go back to that.

Plus you need to earn the right to play entertaining rugby, by first building a solid base, and confidence. That will take time after the horrendous injuries of the last few years. But to go away to Hull and win is always a good result, regardless of the brand of rugby.

But, as I mentioned in my above post, people griped and moaned throughout the majority of the 2006 season about the style of rugby we were playing. The fact that hardly anyone remembers that now illustrates clearly that what really matters is winning.

The Catalan loss does not look too bad either does it???


Wigan seem to have been owned by that same team.

So glad I changed the kicker in my fantasy team.

LFC Saint did you actually go to the game?

In the context it was a must win game for both sides, who pulled their tripe out and were shattered at the end.
No a pretty game but both sides gave their all.
Hard to criticise KC with what was available and the circumstances.
We scored two cracking tries and scrambled well in defence.
FC fans will probably consider they were unlucky, which in a way they were.
Make no mistake this was a massive win,especially after the Pies result today.
Lfc Saint do you have a hidden anti-KC agenda?

The players are putting there bodies on the line i have no complaints about the players. My gripe is that they're being held back by poor coaching.

I don,t think its poor coaching but probably match tactics, we where looking pretty good the first part of the season and a lot more entertaining. KC is probably playing a limited percentage game at the moment because of the absence of pivotal players, everything is coming off Burns at the moment and is using the pack to give Burns options which is a bit one dimensional at times.
We have not had a settled 1st choice attacking 1 to 7 for 2 or 3 consecutive games and thats how it will be for the rest of the season, so KC is on a learning curve on what situations work best without too much experimentation.

I would disagree with that. Regardless of who has been on the pitch this season we have been playing the same style, and giving away as many penalties, and the odd try here and there aside, we have been dull to watch. We do seem to have stopped the interception gifts though.

Has anybody got any stats for this game, not seen anything official yet.

No stats yet, but just seen the highlights. Looked to be a very tight game.

That first try requiring 3 kicks just showed how hard Hull were to break down. Low scoring can mean that sides are playing poorly, but it can also mean both sides are playing well and defending well.

Some of the best games are 7-4, 10 - 8.

It does not have to be points galore to show you are a good side.

I agree. We have looked poor in attack for most of the Season with our moments tho look pretty good.

I'm willing to give KC a fair crack tho. We've lost Lomax who was one of our biggest threats with ball in hand. Other teams fear lomax and back off him which gives us space.

Vea and greenwood was going very well on the edges and causing trouble for teams. Vea has been massive loss, his workrate is 2nd to none and helped put the props.

Percy is another whos a threat on the edge with ball who's missed large chunks of the season.

We all know what walsh can do.

And we lost Charnock mid game so that's another reshuffling which does not help our attack.

To be honest I had forgotten about Greenwood and Vea being out. They will add something in attack, but Vea was also pretty solid defensively.

We've got a fair few strike players out.

I think our discipline has been our worse enemy especially on the 5th tackle to give the opposition another 6. A lot of games we,ve not played smart and we,ve gone down the one dimensional route. The potential is there its just performing in the right mind set.

I see Hull's Setaimata Sa faced no charge for his shoulder charge on Charnock as it was deemed "should to shoulder".

Was this the incident which forced our lad off?
Hardly a match in sizes.

superleague.co.uk/report/11151 stats now up quick looks says Walmesley and Amor were the heros

superleague.co.uk/report/11151 stats now up quick looks says Walmesley and Amor were the heros

Luke Thompson's defence is disappointing. To miss 5 tackles as a forward when you didn't make all that many (relative to others) to start with isn't good. Walmsley's metres are huge again. He's been top metre maker every week so far. I notice as a team we made fewer metres than Hull and fewer breaks than Hull. I wonder where they made their breaks? Eight in a game is quite high.

Just watched that 1st try again against Hull. It gets better every time I watch it. Slightly reminiscent of the never say die, entertaining rugby we used to see when Cunningham, Long, Martyn etc played. Keeping the ball alive at all costs to break down a very tight defence.

Cunningham's doing a top job so far imo.

I think you really need to look at each tackle before jumping to conclusions. Many teams this season are employing bump-and-run tactics which makes it very difficult for defenders in a one-on-one situation. The statistician's pen suggests all missed tackles are equally bad. But you don't need to spend much time watching the game to realise some players are more culpable than others.

While you may have a point, we only have the stats as given to go on for all players so we can only take them at face value. If another player, say I don't know Wilkin, missed five tackles in a game I don't think anyone on here would be questioning his style of tackling, just that he missed five tackles in a game! When Walmsley missed nine tackles in one game nobody was contemplating the style of tackling used, including me, because missing nine tackles is terrible by a forward, so I'm not going to change my approach towards the stats simply because the disappointing figure this time belongs to young Thompson.

Which is why I wish they would either publish opta's full statistical record for the week or failing that - none at all. If the clubs are opposed to publishing complete figures then I'm certain they know arming spectators with an unreliable, inaccurate, misleading and unscientific subset of those figures can only lead to confusion of the fans.