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.

You've said more than that Pete. And of course he has played halfback. Didn't we win our games this year when he played halfback?


Hanbury came from Crusaders didn't he? That happened after we'd signed Hohaia. Watts comes with a chequered past. And who is Seymour? Is he an international?


I would imagine by now that McManus has a lot of contacts in the market and would be able to check on what Royce said and what he recommended. And after all, coaches just recommend players. They don't recruit them.


He was available though.

Like I said, we don't know who was available and took Simmons word for it. As you said, McManus will have contacts so I'm highly surprised we signed a fullback as a halfback.

The lack of quality halfback is the major problem and IMO cost Royce his job.

Which is as much McManus' fault as Royce's. Had he forced Eastmond to make a decision at the mid point of the season before instead of three games into a new SL campaign we would have had time to bring a half-back in. By pandering to Eastmond we were forced to throw Lomax into the scrum half spot. He did ok. But a lot of that was down to his partnership with another youngster, Gaskell, which was completely new to SL's planned defences. Now because Lomax is more of an instinctive player rather than a tactically creative one he's been worked out at scrum half and we are left in the embarrassing and wholly undesirable position of having not a single functioning number seven at the club - [iincluding a reserve.
[/i

Can't really argue with that, mac has to take his share of the blame but at the end of the day he's the boss and he won't sack himself. Jamie Ellis was another 7 we let go recently too whos looking like a good player

You do keep ignoring the fact - the fact - that Hohaia has played at halfback and that is where he also played in his junior years. He was only a fullback for about the last four years. Is Sam Tomkins not a halfback because he now plays fullback?


The last bit is utter tosh. What cost Royce his job were senior players not doing theirs. If Puletua had been awake and caught Wello's pass in Bradford we would have won that game and Royce would still be in a job. McManus is living in his own little world thinking we have a world beating team when actually we don't, and that's largely down to McManus and his recruitment policy of recent years, a recruitment policy you have derided many times on these very boards. So stop changing your tune.

He was let go at the end of Potter's tenure.

Jamie Ellis was let go for off field reasons rather than on field performance. It was the right decision at the time.

To be fair to Murphy, he could never hope to match Wigan's spending. Yes, he was a bit of an anachronism in terms of coaching. But he was also unfortunate to arrive at a time when Lindsay set out to buy the league.

But if things go wrong while Keiron is helping out, similar caveats could be applied by those who consider these things surely? 'To be fair to Cunningham, he was appointed at a time of massive upheaval and unrealistic expectations ...' That kind of thing. It would still not change the possible ultimate outcome though would it?

Unless Cunningham is left in charge for the entire season and performs poorly I really don't think his legacy will be tarnished in any way.

True and saints had no alternative really.

Keep saying it doesn't make it come true. Hohaia is a fullback who has excellent utility he is not an out an out halfback which is what we are missing. I like him as a player and I think he has great value to the squad.

Before anyone says it Leon Pryce was a different case, he didnt have a settled position but he was young and we wanted him to play 6, the big difference was we had a very experienced 7 to help him develop.

A quick look at Lance's wikipedia page tells a true story - he was utility then almost en entire season at centre then settled as a fullback for club and country.

Indeed, and at the time I didn't blame Murphy for our utter mediocrity in that era. But you only need to compare his tenure with what McClennan did with basically the same players and the same clueless dinosaurs running the club to see that he really was never up to the job. With God as coach we couldn't have challenged the Pies during their loony period of remortgaging their own future, but we should have been closer than we were...

Excellent first game from these two. They had us fired up for the first time in hid knows how long. We was running hard, running faster and working harder than we have for long time.

The defence looked much more organised and we was looking to really knock them down and not just pussy foot around.

We had runners and moved the ball around like a team that had been coachesd this week.

Great to see us actully have a kicking game. Hohaia was pinning then back with some top notch kicks.

The back on the bench has gone and we are playing with 17 players again.

McClennan was certainly a better coach than Murphy. But it would be wrong to say they competed on an even playing field. McClennan had the better squad.