Rush said when Royce was first sacked that they were taking the advice of the senior players both in coaching and in training. For example, he said they (he and KC) were inexperienced and so may 'do something wrong' in training, so they are collaborating with the senior players on this kind of thing. So the evidence - and it is [ievidence[/i I am giving, not proof - suggests that there is a collective at Saints at present. Given how close play and team selection are connected, and given that - as I said earlier - turkeys wouldn't vote for Christmas - I very much doubt the senior players will be sacrificing themselves. Given the need of Rush and KC t maintain positivity among the senior players, I can't see Rush or KC upsetting said senior players by dropping them or moving them elsewhere in the line up if they don't want to play there.

Now that's naive.

Has jones and swift demanded to play?

It's not and I know it's now happening like you suggest.

They aren't senior players.

You honestly think Meli has gone some pull in the dressing room?

Well, it's probably the only place he'd have a chance.

Mind you, he is pretty hot without his shirt on.

I think you'll get you wish as I doubt he will be here next year.

Admittedly there is a basis for your suggestion that there is a collective coaching setup in place (although I think you are exaggerating somewhat. I remember Rush saying he was consulting the senior players in order to draw on their experience. I certainly don't remember him saying he was doing it because he and KC 'might do something wrong').

You have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Meli has demanded to be played on the wing, however. Despite this you have stated it as if it were fact.

I didn't say Meli had demanded to play on the wing!



I've said on here before that Mike Appleton tweeted after the Leeds game how 'good it was to see Meli enjoying his rugby on the wing again'. Given that comment, given the comments by Rush (and they did include the reference to training - it was in an interview shortly after the handover) and given that Meli rather than Makinson (who was fit at the time of the Leeds game) ended up on that wing and has stayed there, I have simply put it all together. As I said, it is evidence, not proof.

PS: as additional evidence to the player power idea, take Josh Perry's whinge in League Weekly the week before last. In spite of agreeing that the extra training Royce was putting him through was helping, he moaned about not being selected and how he thought about giving up the game because he wasn't being selected every week. So now he gets selected every week, even though he is still our poorest prop by a mile.

2+2=5

Could be. Or it could be 2+2=4.

Like I said, it's evidence and not proof.

Let's have a look at the exchange below.









So you didn't type the word 'demanded', but if you were suggesting anything other than that Meli's selection on the wing was his own decision then you were going about it in an awfully strange way.

Let's look at the alternative, the one which reflects what I actually said, by way of an imaginary (but perfectly possible) conversation:

Coaches: 'Where do you feel happiest playing, Franny?'

Franny: 'On the wing'

Coaches: 'Ok then. Wing it is.'

Or it could be, Just like Mike Rush has said, That the players took a long hard look at themselves and realised they were not giving 100%. Also could it not be that with the departure of the coach, the two interim coaches decided to get back to doing things which had worked in the past. Maybe.

So I was right when I thought you'd made the whole thing up, then.

which would make it a coaching decision. I can assure you all players speak to their coach and let them know where they prefer to play it's nothing out of the ordinary

I think we can all be selective in the views that we take from time to time.

I agree that when the new set up took over, they said that they would share some ideas with senior players. However it is one thing to have an opening exchange with senior players about where they thought things were going wrong. Saying that week in week out there was going to be a coaching collective is not true.

Translating this to players getting to pick where they play is a case of fitting a statement to fit your own interpretation. The discussion that the Saints players have with Daniel Anderson was around the type of attack we employed and that we did not have the personnel for the type of play anderson originally wanted.

With Rush and KC the discussion may have been more along the lines the style of attack that Royce employed and the defensive patterns he favoured and what they felt would work better.

I think the using of more experienced pros was to redress the balance that some including Foster and Gaskell where left hanging out to dry, with confidence down effecting their games. This was something that nearly all people agreed on before Royce went even those with different views on whether Royce should have stayed, or stayed longer, or gone.

Makinson whilst not having a blitering scoring record, did not have the same frailties in his game and so that is why he has made the squad more often.

As for when we will see Gaskell or Foster again, well it's a bit early to be calling time after less than 5 matches. That's a little over a month which is nothing in terms of players coming in and out of first team squads.

Funny that since you agreed with some of what I said!



I've made up nothing, except the imaginary conversation which I did say was imaginary (that means made up, in case you aren't aware!).

All views are selective, all of the time.


And you know this how? You don't. As you said above, we can all be selective in the views we take. You have selected to choose not to believe a coaching collective exists; at present anyway, I choose to believe that it does.

People just interpret the evidence in their own way, as you said above.

I can assure you that I know that already. However, the context of all of this is not about players having a chat with the coach. It's about a coach and his assistant being sacked because some senior players were unhappy, then two totally inexperienced (at this level) people replacing that coaching staff (a situation no Saints fan would have tolerated if those replacements had not been who they are) and going on about playing the Saints way and players being happy in their rugby and all that stuff.

To properly appreciate a point, or indeed anything in life, you have to take it in its context. That is the context of this discussion which makes it different from, say, players having a chat with Daniel Anderson.

That's a joke isn't it?

And then winning 5 out of 6 games since they were put in charge after coming off the back of 5 games without a win!

Personally I think your making stuff up with the 'coaching collective' but I guess you're entitled to your opinion. Either way it appears we are better off with the way it's going now than the way it was, coaching collective or not.

Leeds recently lost three games in succession, but they then won a game. In fact, Leeds were terrible last season and everybody wrote them off. But hey, they still managed to beat us at OT. So unlike a lot of people I didn't put half as much importance in those losses, which were all extremely close, as many people did.


I'm either making stuff up or I'm expressing an opinion. Do you know the difference between the two?

Let me help you. I'm expressing an opinion. I've said that all along.

Let me ask you something.

If McManus had announced that Mike Unknown* who oversaw youth development at Crunulla Sharks plus Keiron Legend* who retired from playing there a year ago were going to coach Saints after the sacking of Royce Simmons, would you have been happy at that appointment?

PS: For those still unsure of the difference, the names with the asterisks marked beside them are made up. That is, they are imaginary.