There's a time and a place for being patient, I agree with that bit.

But when you've tried and failed with those tactics already for 72 minutes and you have a numerical advantage, not chancing our arm and playing more expansively was an error; an error which ultimately cost us the game.

Aimlessly? Throwing the ball out wide, creating overlaps, missing players out, offloads etc this is what it means to play for a team like Saints, who were long famous for scoring last minute tries (Never write off the Saints etc) before the successes of post 96 never mind before it.

I'm sorry, I know for many other clubs, that strategy against 12 men is totally acceptable, but if that's what we've settled for as Saints fans then we've lost the very thing that set us apart from other teams...I don't mean winning trophies, i mean playing the game like the Brazilians play football.

I'm not losing hope yet...players like Lomax (when he comes back), Makinson, Swift, Percival, Richards, Thompson, Charnock, Roby, Greenwood, Savelio and co all know what it means to play for Saints.

I'm not given to over reaction, so I've given it the weekend . It's the tactics , simple. Apart from Vea (plenty of 2nd row cover), Lomax (Quinlan cover) and Tommy Mak -( really missing this lads finishing) we had a full squad avaliable and it was shocking.
It's all good KC coming out ever week saying the players arnt performing, but it's his bloody job to make them! Why arnt they?
KC starting to look horribly out of his depth and if things don't improve a Saints legend will destroy his own reputation

A drop off is a play that settles you and gets you back to the middle for the next play. If we're running a drop off on 4th, 20 out from the line, it's because we spread the ball the play before. It's very difficult to set up a triple second man play, immediately after a spread play the other way - plus we tend to run our spread plays from just outside the far post.

But I'm talking in terms of winning. In terms of whether it's good to watch? Not really. It looks like we've spent the entire year playing as we would in a Grand Final, where you kick early, play for territory and don't look to be expansive. We've scored some excellent, skillful individual tries, but not many from the top of my head which have been off the cuff team tries.

I think something to bear in mind here is the amount of young players (and new players) we've got at the minute. Being new to (consistently) playing first team, players aren't always gonna be confident enough at this level to throw passes they're capable of. That will (hopefully) come with time, but with Quinlan, Vea, Greenwood, Percival, Savelio, Richards, Thompson, Charnock, Savelio all new to consistently playing first team for Saints, which probably magnifies our current game plan in terms of lack of flair. Look at Walmsley for example - 16 offloads in 2013, 17 offloads in 2014, 46 offloads this year already. LMS in his first season with us offloaded 9 times all year. 23 the following year, 28 already this year.

Hanley had exactly the same problem with Tricky Trindall, KC has the problem in that he has two of them, worse still he can't replace them with anybody at the moment.

what annoyed me the most was when Walsh threw a horrendous pass to Swift which sailed about 3 foot above him & straight into touch. Then Walsh just flapped his arms to say 'you should of taken that'. I think it may be time to pull Walsh out for the next game however Burns hasn't been great either. Can Quinlan play 7?

Also I think the players need to take some responsibility to, there where knock ons from the play the balls, forward passes, balls going into touch. Pretty basic stuff really. lets just hope this is our dip in form and we get better.

I don't think anyone has a problem with a drop off as a settling play after a shift. But 90% of the time it's not coming after a shift. It's coming after a winger scoot and a 1st receiver hit up. After this Burns or Walsh carries the ball to the fringe of the ruck (presumably in a transparent attempt to convince the opposition that the play might be going wide) then drops it off to a runner cutting an inside line. Rather than using it to bring the ball from the edges to the middle, we're using it to go from the middle to the middle.

I've been lucky enough to miss last week's game.

I do, however, well remember one of the worst nights in my saints speccy history being the home defeat to Hull in our first year at Langtree park. You'll remember Jordan Turner (in a hull shirt) skinning Shenton for a long range try.

That was just before we got rid of Royce, but the game day feels very similar.

We do have an outstanding set of forwards, but when practically every play is the same, with one man trucking it up by himself, then its is SO easy to defend against, then its marginalising the power we do have. This was exactly the same in Royce final weeks.

The specific example quoted was 20 out from the Catalan line, I'd be more concerned if a winger was scooting there! I suppose part of the problem is with Wilkin out, we don't have any ball-playing forwards who can take the ball to the line and actually hit a pass. The drop off is one of the only ways we can look like we're actually going wide (which we can only actually do off a quick PTB due to our pedestrian halves.



I'm not sure we do have an outstanding set of forwards to be honest. Walmsley is carrying our pack in terms of work rate. Against Hull, between Savelio, Richards, Thompson, Flanagan, Greenwood, LMS, Masoe and Turner combined, they made 394 metres. Percival, Swift, Jones and Fleming made 430 metres. When between 8 of your forwards make less than 400 metres and only bust 2 tackles (between 8 of them!!), no wonder your halves don't look any good.

I don't think the current on field stats are a reflection of the potential, though. Blind alley, one up running is meaning our lads are hitting defences that know exactly what they're going to do and easily countering us with numbers.

I'm not going to push the "best pack in SL" tag, but we've certainly got a very good set of players to line up 8-13.

Fair point. I think we've got quite a one-dimensional pack. We've got a big pack (bar Amor), but hardly any of our forwards can pass consistently and accurately. I'd imagine part of the reason our support play is crap is how often would we use it? We've got a pack that is good at scoring tries from 10 out and as a whole hits good lines. We don't have many forwards who could make a clean break though, footwork is scarce, offloads aren't that common. As a result, if we aren't going over the top of teams, we struggle, particularly without Wilkin and Vea, both of whom offer something different. This is compounded by the fact Masoe and Amor are both awful at the minute.

I agree. I hope KC is considering recruiting a prop for 2016 who has good hands and looks for the offload. He doesn't need to be a big name, he can make his name at Saints.

Its all in there, though, if you dig.
Greenwood and Vea can make beaks out wide. LMS is very Mobile. Sav and Amor have good feet.
It looks like we've been told to quell offloads, but Mose can pull some great ones off and, given how rangey he is, Walmsley could easily add this to his play.
There's no Jammerequse ball player, mind.

It just seems that we want to steam roller teams, but don't realise that you have to be smarter about it than just having 1 up runners hitting the line by themselves.

Walmsley was off-loading for fun at the beginning of the season. If he isn't now, that will be down to KC's deathly dull tactics.

Agree with Greenwood and Vea, though I think Greenwood generally only makes breaks hitting the lead line of a second man play, and we seem reluctant to run them more than 20 out. Amor does have good feet but is a bit too small to really benefit. On the offloads: we're 7th in the league for them, so it doesn't seem too bad, but of the Super 8 teams, only Cas are below us. Walmsley is actually our top offloader, and 6th in Super League, though I think his decision making of when to offload needs work.

I think we just need to be a bit more expansive coming out of our own half. Nothing fancy, just spread the ball from the middle and get it into the hands of Percival/Turner/Vea (when fit) early. Completions are important, but it feels like we're focused on them too much. Only Widnes have made less errors than us. Not making errors is great, but Catalans, Huddersfield, Warrington, Wigan and Leeds are 1-5; sometimes errors are a necessary risk.



Was KC not the coach at the beginning of the season then?

I agree, we don't have a great pack, we have a decent pack and nothing more. Roby and walmsley a carrying that pack big time.

He was early on, but he seemed to have offset it with tackle busting (101) hence the massive amount of accrued metres so far this season. LMS has improved his offloading game. Richards improvement is that he doesn,t make that many errors, just had 2 bad games. As we all know its Amor who has struggled most of this season except for the Hull KR game (150 metres).

So ... we should just hand back the trophies we won last season and under Hanley because we didn't play "The Saints Way"?

In any case - SINCE WHEN was it good strategy to simply decree that Saints [i"must always play in such and such a fashion"[/i - for ever and ever amen?

Leaving aside the fact that people might have radically different opinions on the ideal style of play - have you considered the possibility that Saints (for whatever reason) might not HAVE the players to play in such fashion.

Good coaching is all about analysing the strengths and weaknesses of your roster AND THEN picking a strategy which gets the best out of them - not the other way around.

Haha, I'm gonna regret engaging with you but I can't resist.

The difference between last year and 99 was that last year we had several key players injured and adjusted our style of play to win matches. I have no issue with the way Brown won the league and GF. It was fantastic.

In 99, we had strike players who could change a game and play exciting rugby league if they were let off the leash (As Millward did with them the season after) such as Newlove, Iro, Long, Martyn, Sullivan etc

The club prides itself on its entertainment tag and its fans refer to them as that, hence the title of this board. It's in the CULTURE (I'll use patronising capitals like you) of the club to play exciting, expansive rugby league. Only a few seasons ago, Mike Rush referred to us as having a culture much like what Ajax, Barcelona etc have in football for playing the game in an exciting way.

The club up until recently have tried to sign rugby league players who fit in with the culture of the club.

The CULTURE (How do you keep up the capitals without feeling like a proper nobstick?) of the club I'm sure will be pummelled into the young kids who sign for the club. Our 1st team is full of the kids who have come through the system. A few of the tries we've scored this season imo have more than shown we do have the personnel to ditch this boring brand of rugby and play some decent expansive stuff instead.

Ultimately, it's an entertainment business. People will stop going to the games and will just pick and choose games instead if this brand of ZZZzzzz rugby keeps getting served up.

I can't wait to read your patronising response were you will no doubt use the capitals, put some words in bold and underline others.

We've had arguably worse injuries this season and in case you somehow missed it - we've adjusted our style of play on several occasions. At the start of the year we played some of our best rugby attacking the line with two props, one off the shoulder of the other and delaying the final pass for them to take advantage of the space. We were also kicking very early in our sets. Then after we lost both Vea and Greenwood we seemed to stop running tight loop-arounds entirely and suddenly we weren't kicking early any more. Admittedly we've not given the ball as much width as I like - but I have to say we have also scored some absolutely spectacular tries, too.

Comparisons with Brown are utterly pointless unless you are prepared to judge both sides up to THIS point in both seasons. It's hilarious how everyone is Brown's biggest supporter today - but I remember some of the vitriol and bile which was spewed in his direction prior to the playoffs. It wasn't pretty and many of the criticisms leveled at him are similar to those I'm seeing now.



The point is - they rarely were. And we still won the GF. Which says precisely WHAT? In your own time, please.



Are we talking about the same Saints team, here? Prior to Millward's arrival at Knowsley Road, St. Helens had - FOR DECADES - emphasized attacking primarily down the flanks. Year after year our top-tryscorers were Vollenhoven, Ledger, Quirk, Hunte, Sullivan etc. with the likes of Newlove, Elia and even Paul Loughlin not far behind them.

I agree that Ian Millward added mobility and athleticism to the side - but you are completely and utterly WRONG in suggesting he added "width". On the contrary, Ian Millward CONTRACTED Saints attacking style considerably - not least because he placed such a great emphasis on players getting to their feet quickly, thus enabling our dummy-halves to make several scoots per set of six.

As stated, prior to Millward we always scored heaps through the outside backs. Of course, the likes of Sullivan and Newlove continued to score - but if you actually bother to check the stats our most prolific players (Long, Martyn, Cunningham, Sculthorpe & Wellens) all made bank down the CENTRE channel.

Just because Saints had the kind of talent in the outside backs who could score out of nothing - this doesn't mean Ian Millward was an "expansive coach". He was not.



Completely subjective. We've played great rugby down the middle (under MILLWARD) and out wide (primarily under Bomber and even Hanley). So which method fits the "Saints Culture"?

Consider Wigan. John Monie was an insanely successful coach and arguably their best. He was also boring as hell.

The truth is "Culture" is in the eye of the beholder. I remember back in the eighties when people were saying the British game was far more entertaining than the ARL. Perhaps it was. But it didn't stop us being smashed from pillar to post each time the Kangaroos toured or we went over there.

Take a boxing tip from your mate, St. Pete, [i"Styles make fights".[/i



Unless the club is dumber than I think they are talking more about things like behaviour, responsibilities etc. It would be completely ludicrous for any club to commit FOREVER to a particular style of play. I mean, what happens if the opposition devise a counter-strategy? Do we just soldier on taking one pounding after another - ad infinitum? Or do we change? I think we both know the answer to that question.



EASY.



Let me ask you a question. You've just praised Brown to the heavens. I'm prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt over whether you thought similarly during those periods when we were getting pummelled last season.

[iBut what if I said that it was Nathan Brown who advised Cunningham that this strategy best suited our current crop?[/i

You'd have to think he'd have offered some kind of advice to the incoming coach and given Brown's success (and Cunningham's position as a complete novice) you'd have to think Keiron would have taken such very seriously.



A classic example of "glass half empty/full" if ever I've seen one. Let me remind you that Saints have been in more competitive and incredibly close matches this season than I can remember in a long, long time.

Isn't THAT entertainment? What more do you WANT? Or are you one of those people who only comes alive after we've sunk sixty points into the opposition?



You keep throwing 'em, I'll keep hitting the home runs.

It's been so peaceful on here last week or two and now back to the constant "im know better then you" debate.

Every theread turns into a debate.

Seriously, I just don't understand what you aren't getting here. This is a public discussion board - the operative word being "discussion", "debate" or whatever the hell else you want to call it.

If you wanted peaceful quiet and goodwill to all men shouldn't you have joined a monastery or a hippie commune instead?

The strange thing is you have absolutely no qualms about aggressively going after anyone who doesn't agree with your opinion. Yet somehow I'm the villain?

Was that a post on public forum or a prologue for a book?

I was never a supporter of Brown. i've admitted on other threads that I was one of the people shouting for him to go. I wasn't sad that he left. However I have full admiration for the way he got us the league leaders shield and the GF win with so many key players out.

I'm not saying middle is boring and width is exciting. Of course exciting tries can be scored up the middle. What I'm saying is that 3, 4 or 5 drives up a pitch and a kick is boring. Not putting the ball through a few pairs of hands to create a gap is boring. Not offloading is boring. Our current style of play is boring, Mugwump. Defend it all you like. It's boring, restrictive, unimaginative rugby. And that's not the philosophy or culture of the club.

It was interesting reading what Radford had to say after the game. He acknowledged that some of their rugby was really exciting, that they were playing more ad-lib and freely, but that he didn't want to coach that because it would give him a heart attack.

I'm glad I'm not a Hull fan, because hearing your coach say that is so sad. I worry that KC might share them thoughts on his own players.

I'm not interested in trying to out battle you like some busy little keyboard warrior on a RL forum so I'll finish up.

I remember watching a documentary on Man Utd in the early 90's during the 1st success in 26 years. I was expecting some epic, William Wallace style speech to his players before he sent them out onto the pitch...but all he said was "go out there and express yourselves". That was it.

I appreciate there's a lot more to coaching than that, but I loved it. He said something similar in his autobiography a couple of years back too.

Sport is at its best when the shackles are off (That's me saying that not Ferguson

)

I wasn't a fan of Brown's time. If you'd have told me mid way through his tenure that he'd win the GF I'd have been very surprised.
What he did was random. Not just the GF, but other big games were won somehow, despite us looking poor with the ball for long periods and always a bit shakey out wide. Its still a head scratcher for me know.

KC has had us doing some excellent things. Early in the season we looked very ggod. We had good shape with Vea and Greenwood proving a real handful in their channels. The kick chase was excellent and we had plenty of big front rowers bashing it up. The defence was also very successful.

We don't (and haven't for ages) spread the ball to the 3/4s well, which is why the more physical Turner is getting more joy with the ball than Percy, who would thrive more of early ball in space.

One wonders if KC has got too obsessed with things like a kick chase being the dominant strengths for the team, and is negelecting creativity.

We simply don't test defences, its too easy to read and so easy to defend, we're just relying on the size of our lads to break through, but its too easy for the defence to brickwall us in the middle when we're so predicable. Not only does that make thing 10 times harder for the big men, but you'll see certain players playing with a whole lot less confidence and enthusiasm if they're getting lined up every time.