It's definitely worth reducing the number of subs. Haven't they already done that in the NRL?

The challenge for us in this country is to treak the rules in order to breed better players who are more skilful and can do well without having to rely on a big pack or a quick scoot. Once we can do that we'll do better in internationals. Who's to say we couldn't tweak our rules to take it a stage further so we breed the best attackign players over here? The NRL has constantly done it's own thing and made rules changes to improve. We should seize the initiative over here.

Fancy a new petition??

There have been a number of tries that were all about good attacking play, Catalans and Leeds mainly, even Wigan and Warrington have joined in. We have not for the most part however.



I thought it was, but I prefer dour hard games that have tension right up until the end. I even enjoyed the GF until 6 minutes to go





I agree that there haven't been many moments of excitement at Saints, but I'll add in the two Wigan games at KR, Hull KR at home and Wakey at home too. Leeds Catalans in the play offs was a great game, as were a few of the Warrington CC games. The unforced handling errors have become a problem, moreso at Saints than at other teams it seems, but that has little to do with rule changes.



The three wise men?




The NRL probably has become more exciting (I've not watched it) but they've got half backs that can create and are skilful because they've had to deal with set defences for so long, once that is added in with a quicker ptb then you will get better games. If we went back to quick ptbs we'd just get quick scoots again.



As you've said elsewhere, I think we can blame Daniel Anderson for that for being so successful in 2006 with a dour game.

A good idea in theory, but it would never be implemented. There are too many rule changes and it would be viewed as a different game by casual spectators. It would also be confusing for the players, refs and especially fans with so many rule changes IMO. Most have enough problems knowing the current rules.

Would this be played in December/January?

Without answering each point in turn, I think it's impossible for you to not agree that entertaining passages of passing the ball, the willingness to try and keep the ball alive in a way to find ways of out-foxing the defence and finding the gap have gone. You used to be never able to take your eyes for a second because there was always a chance that, on any given tackle, something could happen that could lead to a try.

Instead we have five simple but effective drives which gain five or six metres each, with the odd pass thrown in for effect, and then a kick at the end to gain even more metres. Effectively, there is never any chance of anything happening outwith of the opponents 20, unless it's the sixth tackle. Unless the team is close to the line, I can read my programme from the 1st to 5th tackle without fear of missing anything.

I have seen great low scoring game in the past, with great defences but still teams tried to look for ways to score, they tried to offload and they tried to unlock defences. Now, teams don't even try to find ways to score on most tackles, they simply try to gain metres, so that a few minutes down the line, they can barge their way over.

That's not entertaining rugby, it's negative tactics.

I know its radical [size=67(and I know its not going to happen) [/size, but the Cricket guys seem to embrace variety like the Twenty20 or whatever..
Let's not forget how many people complained about summer rugby, or the fact if we'd never have changed anything we've be playing union.

We shouldn't be scared of implementing stuff, whether it be the above idea or something else - we should just make sure we think everything through first, unlike the whole slowing the PTB
=blue"We've lost to the Aussies, its because we rely on the quick play the ball"
=red"Right then, we'll make our PTB as slow as possible"
next year
=blue"The Aussies have cleaned up their game to incorporate a quick PTB"
=red"D'oh!"

Why do we have to blame our apparant lack of skill on what the Australians do with the PTB? Why don't you blame bananas or carpet?

I'm not sure I see the connection. And by your simple logic, when the Aussies come over here and we slow them down they won't know what to do and we will. But then it is simple logic.

And I would add to that 'played by 1 - 17 who are for the greater part, identikit players who can play a number of positions.' Hell, Sean O Loughlin even played centre recently...

The game in it's current format legislates against individuality. The likes of the honest toiler - the Tim Jonkers of the world have effectively been given their P45.

True there is the odd Rob Burrow, but think more of Ade Gardener who 'bulked up' to levels that have made him slow in comparison to past Saints wingers.

Lager would have left him for dead.

I agree that negative tactics are now more prevelant, but that's down to the coaches, not the RFL.

In fact, they've tried to counteract this for years by continually trying to speed up the game, leading to us now having less skilful half backs and hookers. Defensive tactics have become popular since Anderson came over and did so well with them really, that was in 2006. That was three years before the slowing of the ptb, so why have you signed a petition blaming all the games ills on the slow ptb?



Slow play the balls don't stop team attempting to play attacking rugby. Runarounds, offloads, passing moves, etc are not stopped by a slow ptb allowing a set defence. What it does stop is quick scoots and it means attacking plays have to be smarter to create space because you aren't playing at least 50% of drives against broken defensive lines.

The theory is all well and good. However, the reality is nothing like that.

Enjoys it that much I can hardly recall seeing him at an away game all season wheras he never used to miss

Maybe use the Challenge Cup for one or two changes, though that does run the risk of devaluing it further.

Coaches playing percentage RL mean that it isn't done, not slow play the balls.

But slowing down the PTB is simply encouraging percentage RL.

Percentage RL was played just as much last year, what was the excuse for it then?

Clearly because I didn't read it properly.



I agree with everything you say on this point as I have said on many occasions that the game has been boring since roughly 2006.

Therefore, I would agree that the slow play-the-ball is a step in the right direction. However, the coaches and players are now deadset in their belief that percentage rugby is the way forward that they have lost the skills to combat the slower game that we now see.

Perhaps, with the continuation of the slower play-the-ball, we might see a return to teams having to try and unlock defences but fear that such skills have more or less been coached out of the players.

My major beef is not with the game but with the coaches. They no longer care about entertaining the spectators and the game cannot continue in this fashion.

That said, I don't care who is to blame, I just want it rectifying and I want to see the game that I used to enjoy exciting me once again.

fixed

We can't win with RL supporters. First we complain about sides dropping the ball too often and not being able to execute a simple ball control gameplan and then as soon as teams start doing it we moan because they aren't throwing the ball around with gay abandon. Madness.

I know it was but what I am saying is that slowing down the PTB has exacerbated the problem. It's given coaches one more reason to play percentage RL rather than up the skill level. Hearing Potter ramble on about learning better how to wrestle to time is an example of what I'm trying to say. Had he said that he was going to coach Saints to attack the defensive line in a more creative fashion, or something akin to that, then I would have had a bit of hope. But given his comment, all I can visualise is yet another season of dull, boring rugby, especially if all coaches go the same way.

Increased professionalism has exacerbated the problem, slow play the balls has just meant that there's less advantage from a quick scoot and therefore it isn't used as much.

In regard to Potter, it's not worth discussing with you, you've shown in the past that you don't see any positives from his tenure so far and seemingly just don't like the man. That's despite him playing pretty much the same way as Anderson did, but with a more difficult set of circumstances, including the forced use of youngsters, senior players being less effective for various reasons and the slowed ptb meaning our main form of attack has been next to useless.

I have to say though, I am liking some of those signatures.

talking up RU as some of you are, i noticed somewhere that despite attendances being up in RU, trys are down more or less exactly a try a game from something like an average of 3.8 per game to 2.8.

They been brainwashed.

who have? in to thinking what?

Surely the stat you should be looking at is the number of penalties kicked?