I know he has been very much an 80 minute player for us, but at Manly Menzies was often used for impact off the bench and to run around the tired defences with fancy footwork. Like Dilli said, there's more than one type of impact and it could be an option. I do think (if Crossley and Burgii aren't ready) we are a prop short.

With the pack looking lighter than ever before we really need to start playing smarter. I felt on Friday's showing that the five-up-the-middle approach is still central to our style of play. I'm hoping that this will change when the halfbacks are bedded in and we'll start to see some more creativity, although you'd think this would have been coached into the team pre-season (knowing Orford's qualities in this respect).

It's a worry that players weren't looking to get themselves into those positions. Dummy runners, back up play and running from deep seem to be alien concepts at the moment.

I'm struggling to see where we'll find any kind of impact to match what Saints have on their bench. The memory of Faasavalu and Puletua sweeping us aside at Odsal last year is still vivid in my memory.

Despite their apparent injuries I see us as underdogs in this game too.

The Saint's game is going to be a cracker as both teams will not want to lose another so early on in the season, so watch out for the fireworks on the pitch

Wish it was on TV.

Good post, a lot of fans seem a little obsessed about the size of the pack and where impact is going to come from, where as at the moment that is the least of our problems. Last season we out muscled many packs only to ripped apart by the opposing teams using the backs. Playing straight up the middle isn't going to work this year and the sooner McNamara realises that the better.

At the weekend going forward we looked lost, which as others have said is partly due to the new signings not yet gelling, that said at times there was no runners, no support and generally no ideas, all of which has nothing to do with the new players.

As for the defence it was very poor, players constantly out of position and general lack of understanding between players. This better get sorted and sorted soon, we were lucky to only lose by 12 points on Friday and if we don't address the problems it's going to be a long long season.

I expect a different display at the weekend, less errors and a better understanding between the players, roll on the weekend.

There is a certain irony to this! www.saintsrlfc.com/news/2287

There is a certain irony to this! www.saintsrlfc.com/news/2287

Quote ="Blotto"There is a certain irony to this! www.saintsrlfc.com/news/2287'"

Quote ="Blotto"There is a certain irony to this! www.saintsrlfc.com/news/2287'"

after watching one competative game i think a lot are getting too carried away in saying we dont have the go forward up the middle. you have to bare in mind that we were up against the best defence of last year and most teams will not defend as well as huddersfield did on friday. as far as the saints game goes i really cant judge knowing what saints are like after coming back after a defeat rather worries me. in my years of watching rugby like many bradford fans will know never ever right off the force of the stains

Apparantly one or two fans on the Saints board think we only have 4 decent players and they will still easily win. I still haven't recieved a reply as to which 4 are decent players

I still think we're underdogs. I fear there may be a backlash following their turgid performance versus Hull. Saints have a few issues and aren't the side of old but on paper they're still a much better side than us.

A lot depends on how we iron out our problems this week and if Saints have a heap of injuries to go with their othe problems.

Think this will be a belter next week, gutted it's not on TV as I won't be able to make it.

Big game - whichever side wins will get a lot from it. Another loss and the pressure starts building.

Despite the group suicide over on the Saints board, I fancy us to kickstart our season provided Graham plays. If he misses out, we're in big trouble. He really is that important to us.

"Group suicide"



TBH we're in a similar situation here only that expectations are perhaps a bit more realistic over here. Saints are on paper still the second best side in the league once they find some form. The front row may be lacking without Graham but you still have a decent pack. Look at how Saints won last year at Odsal with much the same team. I expect a similar result with it being neck and neck for 20mins then if Potter brings on a fresh Puletua and Faasavalu we'll have no answer for the next 20mins and that period will be the difference.

As for us a lot depends on if we learn to attack with more variation and sort our goalline and ruck defence. If we can stay in touch while their impact players are on we're in with a shout.

very good point from bullseye

I agree, but the sad thing is I do not belive we will be anywhere near that position under Potter.

Here is the man responsible for the most dour, turgid and dull set of tactics I have ever had the misfortune to witness. Saints sides are known for promoting open play, Potter is the very anti-thesis of this.

It is an intolerable situation for Saints fans who are not bought into the Potter approach - the real reason behind the discontent on Saturday which a lot of people, not being close to the club, fail to understand willingly or otherwise.

Bradford have always been a direct team and Potter may have gone better there. The thing is of course, that when Bradford have played a power game in the past, they have generally had the players to do it and were a disciplined outfit.

I think Saints will get beat by a clear 20 points at Odsal. Difference will be in the halfbacks where Eastmond and Pryce are like oil and water against established pros in Kearney and Orford.

not a confident saints fann there. i cant see us beaten u lot by 20 points tbh

How much of Saints troubles are down to the fact that they no longer have the personnel to play "the Saints way" rather than it being down to Potter?

No more Albert, Lyon, Martyn, Long, Newlove, Cayless, Gleeson, Sculthorpe, Joynt, Barry Ward

etc.

You've two running halfbacks and no real playmaker, an ageing Cunningham, one decent prop and a lack of direction at loose forward. Add to that the threequarters are lacking in a bit of pace and you have a Saints side that would struggle against the sides of 1999-2002.

Is it too much to ask for champagne rugby?

Having said that Saints are undoubtedly better than the tripe served up versus Hull.

The running half backs problem is solved by grasping the nettle and putting Pryce in a different position. He has relied on athletic ability for too long and does not have even an iota of the vision Tommy Martyn had.

I don't buy into the transition theory. We have real quality kids in Lomax, Wheeler who should be given opportunities but are not.

The appears little in overall tactics than to trundle one up down the middle. Wilkin is being woefully under used and like others, form has dipped alarmingly.

Not one player has improved under Potter - a damining statistic in all of this. Wonder if the same is true of Bradford under SMc.

Remember as well that Hudd's turned up with a bunch of kids and stole our clothes so to speak at Knowsley Road last year. It ended the myth that you need personel to play a particular way, although as you point out the quality of your players will impact the result.

Many, if not most, of the Saints fans bemoaning our style of play at present are those who remember the Saints of the 1980s as well as the recent Saints, when we couldn't win a bar of chocolate and big names went to Wigan. It's a style that we have grown up with and our dads and granddads have grown up with. Cas and Wire can play a similar style - open, creative RL which can be risky but is so good to watch. Big talents like Lyon are not needed for it. Appropriate coaching is. The big talents would enhance it, obviously. Why didn't Potter set Eastmond free on Saturday night to carve up the opposition with his footwork and ball skills? Instead, he was plonked at first receiver every time, passing the ball to Pryce every time. That has to be a coaching decision but one which will culminate in the flair being snuffed out of Eastmond, not encouraged to grow.


But that's the tripe we've been watching since about June time and that's why Saints fans are whinging more than usual!

So can I.

I pretty sure there is not one Bulls fan on here who really believes we will beat Saints by 20. Not a chance. Saints are still Saints and it will be a tough game whoever plays.

If your new halfback partnership clicks then believe it: you are highly likely to beat us by 20.

Unless a miracle occurs and we suddenly turn back into Saints!

interesting to hear comments that Pryce isn't suited at Stand Off...

It proves that half backs need a proper understanding between them. Pryce without Long seems lost. That said, I always thought he was too big and too tall to be a SO anyway.

I don't think size is the issue, Pryce is only 6 cm taller than Trent Barrett, 7cm taller than Iestyn. He's 4kg lighter than Wally Lewis was and he's only 4kg more than Iestyn and Barrett. I just don't think he's creative enough, I think both of the Pryce's had the potential to be quality centres or even second rowers, but I think Stand-off would have been the third place i'd have put Pryce in his younger years.