I don't know why you should think that all the so called top clubs have come back into the pack also form in the first month of the season has no reflection on the spoils at the end of the season. Roby wasn't fit enough to play 80 mins, if he had we might have started a bit better and put 40 points on your team, we will just take it as a dodgy win and not a quality win because both are still worth 2 points.

Quick ball is indeed important to Luke Walsh as it helps him stay even further away from the defensive line he is terrified of.

One of the softest players I've ever seen. And I don't buy the argument that 7s don't have to ever take the line on, because good ones do or everything is too predictable. How many times did Thurston take the ball into contact last weekend? I'd venture it was 10+

With their 17, and then losing Albert Kelly, we'd have done well to have lost last night.

I found the team bizzare. Bringing in Greenwood and putting Turner in the centres for the Roosters game, the best team we will play all year, to then change both the week later just seemed crazy. Turner is an okay runner, can boot the ball downfield but his passing with anything over 2 yards is embarrassing. Dawson had a good go but KC needs to swallow his pride and get Turner back at centre and Fages or Burns at 6.

With the ball in hand i thought we were okay. In the first half despite the scoreline we seemed almost ambitious with the ball at one point which made me uncomfortable as i wasnt used to it. Second half we steamrolled them in the forwards and Roby brought out the best in those around him. I have no problem playing the type of forward game we played in that second half as it was effective and well carried out, we even ran in pairs!

The defence throughout was a farce really. Wilkin missing 6 tackles, Peyroux 5 and Vea 5 or 6 (haven't got the stats up at the minute). Kelly looked like opening us up at will and we'd of struggled if he'd of stayed on.

I thought in terms of positives the back 3 were excellent. All made decent metres (166 from swift!) and all got at least a try or an assist (Makinson andd SMD with both). Walmsley and Amor brilliant as ever.

Defence needs to be miles better for next week but that's 2 points we haven't had for years. Hopefully the defence tightens up next week the attack keeps improving as i believe last night was slightly better.

I don't think you are being fair to the guy. When he arrived and before he got injured Walsh had no problems with taking on the line. Since he's been unwilling to get caught in possession with the ball.

But that's perfectly understandable given the terrible injury he sustained. The human brain has a tendency to remember agonizing pain and encourages us to avoid it in the future. It's a survival instinct which is pre-programmed into if not all living species then certainly human beings.

At the back end of last season I was scathing of Walsh's defence. It really was terrible. Since then I think he's worked hard at his game and he's nowhere near the liability he was back then.

But it takes TIME to get over these things. Lots of it. Walsh might not be at 100% effectiveness but he's at least showing signs of going in the right direction. Cut the guy some slack.

In an attempt to make yourself sound intelligent and knowledgable with your comments about the human brain and "survival instinct" you are actually making yourself sound ridiculous.

I personally endured the exact same injury as Walsh once upon a time and I went on to play for years afterwards, not once shirking the responsibility to take the ball in and get hit. Before you think about mentioning the difference in playing standard, that's completely irrelevant seeing as it's supposedly "survival instinct" programmed into all humans.

There have been countless professionals who have broken arms and legs within a contact sport such as football or rugby and gone on to play again without avoiding contact.

To suggest that Walsh is merely acting as a human being is programmed to is complete and utter nonsense. It's another example of your apologist nature over the last few weeks.

Stop making excuses for people and stop trying to ram your head in the sand naivety down our throats.

No doubt you'll respond one paragraph at a time with an array of long words and superfluous language, but it won't change the fact that you are talking garbage.

I actually came back from broken/dislocated ankle at the same time as Walsh did from his injury. Mine wasn't as bad as Walsh but I didn't play for 8 month with it so in my own way was in the same boat as Luke.

It took me a whole 5 mins to get back into it and Over the fear. I wing lie, I was crapping myself before the game but I just thought stuff it and took the ball in the first opportunity I got and then didn't look back.

On the contrary - there really is nothing to reply to. You are having a big baby spat over the fact that I pointed out a phenomenon whose demonstrable truth can be verified by the countless number of professional players in ALL sports who have talked at length about regaining confidence after a bad injury. The fact that Luke Walsh doesn't possess your Rambo-esque psychology proves little more than the fact that you aren't Luke Walsh. Who would have believed that?



How do I know Luke Walsh isn't just lazy instead? By the simple fact that he had no problems attacking the line BEFORE he got injured. Of course it's POSSIBLE he could have suddenly become lazy overnight for inexplicable reasons. But I think most people whose ears aren't separated by empty space will realise it isn't PROBABLE.

Now, you can stomp your feet and gnash your teeth and shout "Apologist" until you are blue in the face. None of these facts are going away. Personally I think your behavior is pretty comical. But maybe that's just my twisted sense of humour.

For what it's worth to you this is Rovers worst team in superleague with 3 forwards playing 6,7, and 9 for an hour and a host of others injured.
I watched the worst Saints team I've seen carried over the line by Roby. Terrible predictable attack, shocking marker defence I could go on.
Burns and Walsh look bad influences.
We will finish bottom 2.
You need to sort yourselves out or you'll challenge for nothing.

We won a Grand Final with a forward at 7, but that was only because the other forward who'd been playing 7 got injured

Good to see the usual brain dead penalties being conceded by the usual brain dead players too. LMS will be the death of my TV one day.

The word 'predictable' is best and most apt adjective that encapsulates everything DIRE about Saints at the moment.
Eminently unwatchable,the entertainers tab has never be so incongruous as it is now.
The current system makes Royce simmons look positivley flamboyent and debonair.

No doubt about, we are the worst team in super league to watch. It's so boring it's unreal and his excuse of the salary cap causing this is a joke. Hull, cas, Salford, Hull KR all supposed to be lower teams to us yet they play good rugby.

I just don't think KC has the experience or rugby brain to have us play free flowing rugby. Tbe only move we do is a drop off pass and that's dire for a pro club.

I'm already dreading his contract extension. He's absolutely stealing a living.

Any idea why we are not using Sean Long's attacking experience or is he in the "one for the future outsider camp" alongside Fages.

I know it's not been up to standard, but we are 3 games into the season and we have won more than we have lost.
Lets not go OTT.

LMS was getting praise off fans last year for his efforts, the possibility of Savelio going to Warrington had saddened and other fans beside themselves in indignation, swift was a possible for being shown the door, Burns was great in his first 7 games and was going to be even better when Walsh came back. Wilkin was a saviour carrying the club when we had no halves etc etc.

You can't buy and sell players week to week like some fans would want (ps fans also at the same time want commitment and loyalty from these very same players)

Now LMS is a waste of contract, Savelio was over hyped (by whom??), Swift is the new Tommy Makinson and can do no wrong where as Tommy is maybe not what we need.

I'm all for wanting better quality and better results, if someone has had a dire game (ie Walsh v Salford) then yes we want to give them grief, but the way we react you would think we are playing this as a computer game where if it's not going well you can simply restart all over again.

Players have bad games and some times a run of bad games and deserve to be dropped, but the league is not won or lost in the opening 3 games.

As fans we seem to be very negative about the team, plenty of posts pre-match and post match if there is criticism to be given. But if there has been a win, like against Huddersfield the boards and threads go very quiet, both here and on Redvee.

Are Saints fans on these boards the new prawn sandwich brigade? I think it was mentioned elsewhere that we are living in the past, constantly harping back to some glory years. But even in those years we got turned over by the likes of Hull and Salford. People just forget the bad losses.

We was boring as hell last year to don't forget. You can get away with be boring if you want trophies like Hanley did but if you play boring one up rugby and don't win, then your in trouble.

Seeing as you picked up on my LMS comment, I've been consistent with my opinion on him. That has changed because of one or two games; I've never really rated him and I think he's a liability.

To be honest I think LMS was pretty good for most of all last season despite having to play in loads of different positions, thought he had a reasonable effort against the Roosters this season. Obviously discipline is his biggest liability, I think this is also down to the coach we were the second worse team for giving penalties away last season and I'm not seeing much improvement this season either, same old offenders and LMS again being one of them, the coaching need to sort it out.

What does not having a rugby brain mean in this context? On the face of it, it's an odd description of a man who's made a living at the top end of RL in this country for more than two decades.

One of the criticisms of our performance v KR was that some of our tries came from kicks. Why is that? Do we now revise our opinion of our win against Bradford in the cup final in 1996? That win, I seem to recall, was based on Goulding's kicking.

KC might or might not make it as a coach who delivers trophies, and he might, or might not, deliver 'entertaining' rugby (whatever that means), but some of the accusations against him are baffling.

I picked up on a few different comments from across a variety of boards, it was not aimed at having a go at anyone specifically.
My point is more around the venom which we seem to be laying into the team gets earlier and earlier each year.
Only 2 years ago we were champions
last year we came close in 2 semi's and probably would have made the final if it was not for one player in sinfield.

The other point is we seem keen to be harsh on the team but after a good win against Huddersfield who people were tipping to beat us before a ball was kicked, there is a smattering of praise before the doom and gloom sets in about the next match.

It's a forlorn hope and I'm as guilty as anyone, but I just wish we could be a bit more positive as a set of fans.

We was boring as hell last year to don't forget. You can get away with be boring if you want trophies like Hanley did but if you play boring one up rugby and don't win, then your in trouble.

OK. His tactics are same every week, we play one up boring rugby no matter who we play . We have no set plays, we have no structure and lack ideas which comes down to coaching.

Doing it in the pitch following Instructions from very clever coaches like Anderson and Millward like KC did is much harder to put these plays and structure in place as the coach has to.

Thank you; that's much clearer.

It's one thing carrying out instructions thought out by your coach but it's a totally different ball game getting your players to carry out your instructions etc