Just wondering after a great front row performance last week, is there really any way back for Mose Masoe? I thought Amor, Savelio, Walmsley and Richards were great last Friday and never took a backward step! I wonder if Cunningham see's Masoe's injury as a blessing in disguise following the pack display? On the otherhand this could fire Masoe up for a devastating finish to his Saints career???

Thoughts?

Well worth a spot on the bench. Richards isn't a great player, Thompson should be in ahead of him. Mose should be on the bench and used properly he's a fantastic asset.

People would do well to not read too much into the Leeds win. They have won the Challenge Cup, which is an exhausting experience despite the relative ease of the win. They'll have spent the remainder of the weekend celebrating, then a large part of the week smooching sponsors and attending celebratory functions. They also rested some of their best players. We wouldn't have won that game if they hadn't rested those players, nor would we if they hadn't played in the Cup final when they did.

It also wasn't a superb performance. It was better, but with 15 to go we were hanging in there.

It's down to him to fight his way back into the team now. No more complacency.

After a season of nightmare injuries we are - finally - getting closer to being able to field a decent side.

Now the proposal is we should start dumping players?



I really don't understand some fans.

Would probably put Mose back in the 17 for this game at the expense of Flanagan and Thompson, plenty of running in the back row with LMS, Wilkin, Greenwood and Sav. I reckon Mose will respond to avoid the possibility of no longer taking part in the remainder of the season.

I'm told he won't play for saints again unless we have severe injuries. The reason being work ethic, attitude and for the benefit of team spirit.

That maybe the mantra this week, but next week they may say without Walmsley and Savellio in the same team, we don't have enough forwards to match everyone else, so Mose needs to come back.

Or maybe we lost our way due to Turner leaving the middle of the park.

We were arguably even more leaky without Turner so I really don't know what we're gaining leaving him on the bench.

Walsh's defence .... well, what do I need to say which isn't obvious?

As for Mose - we needed him tonight. Saints' weakness is always from the 20th minute onwards (both halves) against Cas. When their mobile (and fit) guys come at us we desperately need a big forward to take some of the zip out of their feet.

The thing is - Mose played an absolute blinder in the last Cas game in that precise role. His charging 30m run with a handful of minutes remaining (putting us in A1 field position) SHOULD have been the game. It certainly wasn't his fault we blew the match through stupidity.

I too think he is worth a bench place; it all went downhill a bit when Richards and Thompson came - especially Richards, he is not quite a big man but is slower than a big man.

I thought Flash did well when he eventually came on, whatever he gives (questionable) he gives 100%.

The thing is - Mose's supposedly dropped because his "attitude" isn't right. And yet how many backs were turned resulting in tries tonight?

Ridiculous.

And this happened last game, too.

Watching the game again it's staggering how many tries we gave away because players simply weren't paying attention.

The SKY team made a lot of Cas' excellent handling. But the truth is players wide awake and with their minds on the job of defending would have stopped two-thirds of their points.

I did attempt to count the number of backs turned returning the 10m but gave up after the 30th minute.

I've no idea what LMS was thinking - head down, running toward his own sticks whilst the Cas player was running past him with the ball. But, then, I've no idea what Jon Wilkin was thinking - in exactly the same position last match (not to mention giving away three silly penalties on the bounce).

If I'm Mose Masoe and Keiron Cunningham is telling me I'm dropped because of my "work ethic" or "attitude" then I'll be asking him to explain - in detail - why any number of senior Saints are keeping their jerseys.

Its a good job Mose wash,t playing last night, he would have been held responsible for being lazy in defence and not doing enough carries. I always thought it was a team game and not an individual one!!!.

The whole thing about players retreating the 10m with their backs turned is a really good gauge of who has played or coached the game in recent years, and who hasn't. Every team is coached to turn and retreat the 10, as you can get back and set your defensive line much faster. You're also less likely to knacker your calves like if you back peddle every step. Go and watch the first set of the 2013 RLWC Final. Australia are the best team in the world, completely fresh, yet they're turning the backs to retreat and get set.

Should LMS have been paying attention until someone called they had secured the ball? Yes, but that's something completely different to thinking that following conventional wisdom (with good reason) shows a poor attitude.

I think LMS was intent upon setting the defensive line in anticipation of the next phase, and in the (mistaken, but reasonable) belief that Burns had wrapped up the tackle.

Maybe I could cope with Wilkin and LMS facing the opposite way - [iif it weren't for the fact that an opposition player was running past them to score[/i.

Indeed, some might say the reason an opponent was running past them - to score - was primarily because [ithey had turned their backs.[/i

I mean, it's certainly a possibility.

No idea who it was making the initial tackle running back but they should have wrapped up the ball, they'd practically completed the tackle. If it was a tackle in a usual defensive line they should have finished it, I don't see why they didn't, that player (McMeeken I think?) should have been tackled and held down for as long as possible without giving away a penalty. LMS was within his right to think that tackle was completed and make that 10m as quick as he could to be ready for that next tackle. Whoever didn't complete that tackle was as much to blame as LMS IMO.

What, LMS can't get back the ten without turning his back? If so how come practically everyone else in the league CAN?

I reckon it was a bad decision by LMS, it was Burns who made the initial tackle but it needed 2 tacklers to hold up a big cas forward with momentum, we had Swift, Percival and Roby already tracking back. LMS didn,t check if the ball was wrapped up and ran off, Roby saw the situation and went back across to help out , but was too late as the pass went to Roberts.

AT the end of the day, he's not been pulling his weight, he's not looked intersted and Imo will be happy not to be playing.

We've carried him for far to long and enough is enough and unless we have a incredible injury crisis in the pack or rest players for the semis then I don't think we will see him again. He couidnt get in last week with Sav and Vea out so he's mow behind Amor, walmsley, sav, richards, Thompson and LMS and rightly so.

The way players are coached to get back in the defensive line now is to turn your back on play but keep your shoulders square to the play of the ball and look over the open side shoulder so you can run back faster but still watch the ball. To turn your back completely without a thought for the ball at this level is unforgivable.

As for the forwards, I would go:

Mose
Roby
Amor
LMS
Wilkin
Thompson

Greenwood
Walmsley
Savelio
Flash (Vea when fit)

I really don't see what Richards offers at the moment, in a few years maybe but he simply isn't good enough to warrant a spot in a strong 17 at the moment.

Richards puts 100% in. Tackles his heart out, always willing to take it up...that's 3 more attributes than Mose IMO. Mose has undoubted star quality but isn't consistent and we have to carry him. It's like having only 3 subs.

When is Vea back, btw?

He's a belting player but do you think he's always likely to get injuries? He certainly doesn't hold back in the collisions/tackling.