Firing Potter off now could galvanise us. The players quite clearly dont want to play for him and its doing the club more harm than good in our quest for the 2 Trophies on offer. Promoting KP until the end of the season would be an excellent move as fresh ideas could make us a real force to be reckonend with as the season draws to an end. Potter has done well with the youngers players granted but Saints are the in the buisness for trophies aswell as bringing through younger talent through the ranks and playing like we have been recently we may aswell not bother with the play offs. So I have voted yes for Potter to go.

How is it clear that the players don't want to play for him?

Unless there is a press statement from the players all signed I guess we'll never know for certain. there have been rumours and of course last season Longy did come out and say there was confusion around tactics etc.

We may find out more when he's gone .....

I tend to agree. Stick Paul Newlove and Kevin Iro our current team and we'd walk the league, even if I was coaching!
Potter's squad has continually decreased in depth, signings have been extrodiarily minimal since he's taken over (Soliola and Puletua, and Sia's been injured for all but 1 game). He's brought in youngsters to replace outgoing veterens, most of whom are dismissed by posters like Saddened as not being good enough, but yet we are sitting 3rd in the table and in the semis of the cup and have beaten all the other [itop[/i teams at one point this season.
Yes, Sunday's match was rubbish, but anyone who thinks those sort of weeks didn't happen under our other coaches are kidding themselves.

I do wonder what planet people are on sometimes. That team on Sunday consisted predominantly of kids. We had no half-back and we were one hooker down. The previous week we had no stand off either. Is it any wonder that we look less organised, either in attack or defence?

There are certain areas in which I think we've gone backwards under Potter, but overall he's done a decent job with tightened resources. He's set a solid platform of young players with first team experience for the next coach to benefit from (which was publicly stated as being a major part of his remit when he was hired). We're sitting third in the league after a horrendous run of injuries. Getting rid of him for the last couple of months of the season would achieve what, exactly?

Um, a stand off is a halfback. We had no scrum half. But we did have Wilkin, Wello, Gidley, Graham, Clough, Meli, Pryce, Roby, Puletua, which makes over half the team put out on Sunday. In addition, Scott Moore played a full season in the first team at Hudds and has played in every game of this season for us, either for the full 80 or spelled. Lomax has now had experience as has Matty Ashurst and Chris Dean, the latter I believe is now 22 years old and therefore can't really be considered a 'kid' any longer. The only real newbies on that field were Magennis and Gaskell, and Gaskell was brought on for about 10 minutes at the end. There really was no excuse for the dropped ball, lousy tackling and generally poor standard of rugby league on show. Most of our team was made up of senior players, many of whom are internationals and Grand Final winners.

You may not think that we should be rid of Potter at this point in the season but you can't point to inexperience as the source of our problems on Sunday.

Just clear out all the responses and leave Mugwumps in

Getting rid of potter now. Deary deary me.

So what's your point, that we're crap and it's all Potter's fault?
[size=50and, just for argument's sake, your point about the standoff being a half back isn't totally correct and somewhat invalid to the argument. (more often in Australian commentry) The scrum half is often referred to as the half back and the stand off as the five eighth. Saints play 6 & 7 in a 1st and second reciever capacity with Kyle taking the lion's share of organisational responsibility and pryce playing more of a roving role out wide, the fact Eastmond (the half back) was missing was the crux of the original statement as it causes us to lose our organisational lynchpin. Your reply smacks of you wanting to argue with any post that gives you the slightest chance. [/size

We are playing crap at present, yes, and I consider it to be partially Potter's responsibility, yes. And as for your small text, I know full well what the Aussies call it. But in case you haven't noticed, we are in the UK, not Australia. Our stand off and our scrum half are both halfbacks, regardless of the Aussie five eighths.

What you want to call it is immaterial. The fact is we've been without our key organisational player for the last two matches. Unless you want to dispute that as well, of course.

Our bench on Sunday was Tony Puletua and lads of 19, 20 and 21. We had a lightweight front row. We had a young dodgy hooker playing out of position at scrum half, and a new centre/wing combination that have about 20 career appearances each. Our 20 year old loose forward was making his second appearance for the club.

Are you seriously suggesting that this wholesale lack of experience across the side, combined with the lack our two most influential organising players, does not account at least in part for the level of performance on display on Sunday?

More to the point, do you think we should get rid of Potter now or not?

Who do you consider to be our key organisational player? I consider it to be Pryce and he was there on Sunday, doing his best to marshall the troups, etc. He made a difference - we won - but our standard of rugby league was just painful to watch.


And of course for every other match in the season we have had a full team out? It really doesn't wash, you know, because we have played our best matches with senior players missing and kids in their place. I have every faith in the kids that we keep seeing. Some of them perform better than our senior players.


You are now saying that two of our most influential organising players were missing. Who do you consider them to be? And no, I don't think that makes any difference because we couldn't hold on to the bloody ball and since when has that been an organisational issue? That's aside from all the rest, like Lomax kicking out on the full (which is a mistake I forgave him for immediately but it was one of many on the day, mainly from our senior players it has to be said).


No, I don't. I would love him to be gone, don't get me wrong, but I don't see the point of him going now as it is too close to the end of the season.

Kyle Eastmond. He moves the team around from first receiver and has a good kicking game, which one can't really say of Pryce (although his presence doubtlessly improved things yesterday).


Not at all. We have had to rely on these young players much more than we ideally would throughout most of this season. Many of them have turned in great performances and have helped us to some great wins along the way. Most of them are ready as individuals to be introduced gently to the first team, but for most of this year there have simply been too many of them in the side at once for it to not have an effect on our performance. My point is that, with this in mind, Potter hasn't done badly at all to keep us up there with the big guns.


Eastmond and Cunningham. Of course organisation has an influence on the standard of handling. If you have a well drilled side with a strong organisational heart then runners know where they should be going and the ball players know where their runners will be. It makes everything easier. If, like on Sunday, you have no genuine organiser and a lot of young players who aren't used to playing together and who lack top level experience, then you get a lot of indecision which in turn leads to panic passing and poor decision making. I'm sure you'll agree we saw plenty of that against Quins.


Well there we can agree.

I don't think it matters what country we are in - stand off / five eigth are the same position a name makes sod all difference...and he was probably the difference to us winning and losing on Sunday!

And I agree, while lacking a major organisational influence can somewhat explain some of our slack attack on Sunday it does not cover us for our general lack of effort and sloppy play which at times is so frustrating and almost disrespectful to the paying public.

One thing i don't agree on is you say because Dean is 22 he can't be counted as a "kid" while in age terms its obviously true in rugby terms it is not as clear cut, he has only played 23 times at SL level over 4 seasons - less than Kyle, Wheeler, Ashurst and Dixon - who are all around 2 years younger than him and despite their seniority in terms of experience, Kyle aside we tend to see them as "kids" (though in his case I don't think Dean will ever be good enough to play as a main centre for us anyway).



As for the topic, looking from the outside for me there are several factors so far this season, while Potter is partially to blame with game plans and tactics, the players are professionals pay and prizes should be motivational and they have to accept responsibility for their efforts (or lack of at times) and while we've certainly had poor runs and disruption with injuries to practically every player at various stages this season the players do not look even close to as fit as under Apollo and it is the fitness conditioners that should be held accountable for that (or whoever appointed them).

I do get the impression as Blobby says that we are coasting, trying to just do enough to get through until the games that are critical this season before ramping it up when it counts, if we go on to win and bring home the bacon the coasting will be forgotten (by most) but whoevers choice that is its a very risky way of doing things, we did it under Millward and it backfired several times, under Anderson we didn't approach games like that but that bit him on the bum as we blew out come the end of the season, Leeds have had some appalling performances at times in recent years (with fans calling for Bluey to be sacked etc...) but have then been masters of peaking when it matters, it is a big challenge getting it just right.

Despite all our [iproblems[/i we are still in with a very decent shout of the two main pots this year (something Wigan can't say) and while getting rid of Potter now may well please the anti potter brigade, unless there is some secret truth going about that the players can't train under Potter (one bitter comment from Long is hardly gospel) I can't see how it will have a single positive effect on the team, the disruption for the sake of 8-10 games would be a big risk.

Mick Potter is the most dire speaking coach I have ever seen in Rugby League and there has been a few. Potter doesnt strike me as a coach who can motivate players at all. Further more players shouldnt need motivating they should be fired up for every game they cross the whitewash.

Ok I admit we have had our fair share of injuries but I have never seen such dull rugby league at Saints for decades. Potter has turned us into a drive the ball in 5 times and kick which is not good and its not how we have won many trophies over the last 14 years since 1996. The best thing is for Potter to leave now and give KP the job. It will fire a few rockets up players who are underachieving and fire them to start playing proper Rugby League. I am with you in everything that you have posted and wish other people would see sense and realise under this coach we havent got a cat in hells chance of winning anything for the second year running.

We won our toughest match of the season - Wigan at the DW - without Kyle Eastmond. We miss his kicking game, yes, although I don't think Kyle has managed a 40/20 this season but Leon Pryce did it at the goons' pad. Pryce can chip and grubber as well as punt but he hasn't managed a lot of variety. However, that might be because the agreement is for Scott Moore to do the chips and grubbers but he bombs.


IMO if you're good enough, you're old enough.


Is Cunningham an organiser or a presence? I've been thinking about this in his absence. I mean, he's never on the field for 80 minutes and while our play used to change under Anderson when Cunningham was off, we never looked directionless because our halfbacks were able to do their job. I'm just not sure he's so much the organiser as the leader (and the two are not automatically the same thing). He's an inspiration, is what I'm trying to say. Leads by example. I'm sure he does do some organising - just like I'm sure Wello does. But whether that's his primary function I just don't know.


I talked about dropping the ball. Organisation has absolutely nothing to do with the core skill of retaining a ball, either in collision or not in collision. We dropped a lot of ball in our first match of the season (well, in the half of the pitch I could actually see) but we had all our organisers and indeed all our team on the pitch that night. And indeed we have dropped ball when we have had our organisers on the pitch subsequent to that night too. We have also indulged in some awful passing and terrible defensive work. I'm still trying to come to terms with the fact that Warrington have a better defence than we do. It's still just too much for me to handle.

Indeed. But you are arguing a point that was never made.


I'd say definitely because we played as badly on Sunday as we did the previous week. I think only Pryce, Lomax (bar his kick out on the full) and Meli (in attack only; defensively he was embarrassing sometimes) were effective.


There is no almost about it IMO.


We'll agree to disagree on the definition of 'kid', I think! But I do agree that Dean isn't good enough, and I'm not one to write off young/inexperienced players easily.


I have mentioned the fitness regime on here previously and generally been boo'd down. However, I entirely agree that we don't look fit - or motivated (and perhaps the two are linked). That may be the responsibility of our conditioning team or it may be Potter's training regime or it may be both. I can't see it being neither.


I'm not convinced. But if the team is coasting then the team should be ashamed of its collective self. If they want to put off the fans then they are doing a good job.


Too right it is. It isn't a good approach mentally or physically. I won't forget the coasting, obviously, whether we win everything or nothing. If we win something then I will be relieved we got away with it but I don't like it and I don't think it is respectful towards the fans.


Well, two out of three we did. We did win it in 2006 you know! But I do think it is hard to motivate for continual success. Cracks have to appear eventually.


Except this season I think they have looked stale throughout.


I agree that the risk of disruption a change in coach now would bring is not a risk worth taking, much as I'd like to see the back of Potter. However, I will be amazed if we win silverware this season. We can't string two good performances together. How on earth are we going to cope in the playoffs?

I'd love to know from the Potter critics how they think Millward would have responded to similar squad and budgetary constraints.

Basil did bring through the likes of Stankers and Jonkers - but only because his hand was forced. IMO, he greatly contributed to the demise of Stankevitch by running with that harebrained plan to attack the league using mobile, ball-handling back row forwards at prop. For the first eight games we were the mutt's nuts. Thereafter the train well and truly came off the rails and Stanky and such began taking a pasting from the sides with genuine - big - props.

Milly would try kids - but he didn't like it one bit. I lost count of the number of times he had the opportunity to blood youngsters in gimme games - only to run with his experienced pros.

Faced with a squad of similar strengths and weaknesses - perhaps he would have us playing more attractive rugby. But it would be losing rugby. And we'd be nowhere near third. Not with his defensive philosophy. We may get beaten under Potter. But we mostly [icompete[/i. Under Millward we'd be talking about a mullering one week in two or three.

The Potter critics may hate our brand of rugby under him. But it's a cast iron fact that fans hate [unot competing[/u more. Period.

I honestly see your point but I think your underselling the players we have. You are no different to the rest of us when it comes to guessing , you have no evidence or proof (as it's impossible) to support your argument that we would be lower down the table with a coach like Millward -Look at Leigh , they were relegated last year and he's turned them around. I'd rather be playing entertaining Rugby than being a reincarnation of the Bradford Dulls.

Ah, right. The [i"everything is unknowable so let's not bother thinking"[/i retort (often trotted out by those whose arguments have collapsed like a house of cards).

You are Nietzsche and I claim my five pounds.

What is "dire speaking"? Do you mean he isn't a big talker? How is that relevant? You claim he "doesn't strike you" (uncertainty noted) as a motivator and then claim that it shouldn't matter anyway because motivation is within each player. Congratulations on invalidating your own groundless criticism.



On the contrary, we won two SL titles playing what was described as conservative rugby under Hanley and Anderson. Weird how Hanley didn't take anywhere near this level of flak (Cunningham/Pachniuk - Martyn/Trindall fiasco excluded) - [udespite having a far better squad[/u. Which makes me wonder whether the "boring rugby" accusation is being used as a smokescreen by certain fans for other reasons.



With our backline, injuries and lack of funds? Fat chance.



Is this the best you can come up with to close the book on Potter? Seriously.

I reckon I must watch a different side to you if you think that Pryce, not Eastmond is the key organiser and playmaker and that Cunningham doesn't organise attacking play from dummy half.
We've played badly for two weeks on the trot, quick -





FAIL

Absolutely not and I long for the day I visit this board without these sorts of threads after sub-globetrotters performances missing key players. We're currently better placed for honours than any team other than Warrington which, given the squad Potter is working with and the injuries suffered, is a brilliant position to be in.

I can see why people would get at him though, I mean all our other coaches have dispatched London/Quins with ease at home over the years:

1996 - Saints 24 London 22
1997 - Saints 22 London 22
1999 - Saints 22 London 24
2001 - Saints 22 London 14
2002 - Saints 22 London 14
2003 - Saints 24 London 6
2004 - Saints 22 London 28
2006 - Saints 30 Quins 24
2007 - Saints 6 Quins 14
2009 - Saints 22 Quins 12

I look forward to the "players are ignoring him because he's leaving, it''s nothing to do with Potter" comments when we reach Wembley

Looking at what Potter's got to work with and how other sides have improved I think Saints are probably in their rightful position. Getting rid of him at this stage in the season and appointing the assistant seems crazy.

However if it were to happen I for one couldn't be more chuffed as we need Potter at the Bulls asap!

Absolutely spot on. It's a tough league this year so losses are inevitable.

However it's worth bearing in mind that in 4 of our 7 league defeats we've matched the other side in terms of tries. It just proves that we're not that far off and those small improvements that a few extra bodies could make might pay off.

You're entitled to your opinion.