No chance. It was written in the stars that Saints would win that day. Instead of Ben Flower taking leave of his senses, it would just have been Benny Westwood. If anything you saved yourself the misery and expense.

I think you will do it this year. Leeds are having one last push before retiring Peacock, Sinfield, McGuire and Burrow and disappearing into a transitional year or three but will ultimately fall short, Wigan are shocking and will be lucky to avoid relegation and Saints are again resembling an infirmary during the war more than a honed outfit. If we got our first choice 17 available for the play offs I genuinely don't think we'd be beaten, but what are the chances of that actually happening? Law of averages has it you'll win it this year, you've been strong enough to for about five years now.

Saddened in "talking out of his a**e" shocker......

Saints fans genuinely believe that game was won in the middle?

Their backs made most of the yards and mainly down their left.

Didn't think it was a particulary great forward game from either side.

Is Mugwump still going to try to fish?

Our top 3 of our top 4 metre makers were forwards? Vea (202m), Walmsely (180m) and Amor (108m)

That's decent forward play.

More than the metres made, our middle kept you contained in general and limited the creative play you were able to pull off, much in the same way you did to Leeds the week before. Just my opinion.

Almost everybody that actually watched the game did...

the game was won at half back..average wilkin bossed it aginst our clueless 2

nowt too much in the backs, although they did kick much better than ours, I thought last night Sir A M.

We were out muscled up front, I think our props were/are just too dam soft. Sims isn't the enforcer he was bigged up to be. He's up to a stone too light to be a big hitter. I wouldn't start with him as prop until he has second helpings of everything for the next month.

I know Asotasi isn't the Messiah either but it takes 4 men to stop him unlike Sims who get downed by the standard 2 plus a covering 3rd.
I start with Big Roy for the first 10 and use him like a Paliasina, to soften them up and them get the more mobile Sims on for the next 30.

I say RD don't you be praising Roy ,the men in white coats will be coming to take you away. Roy is much better than his first season display & will probably be one of our best forwards this year.

Ha ha big Roy!! If he's the answer to our forward play then we are in the poop!!
He was that shocking last year that anything will be an improvement this season from last ,, he walks the ball in!! And is riding his 160,000 a year contract with out over exertion ready to cash in his pension and hang his boots up,, Simms and hill backed by a fit England will give the boost we need, and I'm hoping he's off the team list, Simms will come good once conditioned, but that's just IMO,,
Up wire!!!

Saints won, and deservedly, because of their control of the "ruck". If you watch the game again and count how many times we were tackled on to our backs, slowing down the ptb, and the watch how, when Saints were tackled, they fought to go to ground on their fronts and facing the right way. That speeds up their ptb.
Mind you, I wasn't overly happy with the inconsistent refereeing at the "ruck" when the shout of "move" was heard before the tackle was complete on occasions.

Fourteen minutes up to half time and thirteen minutes the other side of half time tells you all you need to know. He does that little he could probably qualify for benefits......

'Big Roy' does a shorter spell than Paul Daniels

i should hang my head in shame after that.. its even worse than the cat paul gallen joke the other day

No i can't ever imagine seeing a 60 minute performance or more out of Roy but he does seem to be an intelligent off loader .

He does off load, granted, but we need metres and guys to get over the advantage line, we have enough ball players, we need a bit more steel up that centre!!

Sorry but i still don't see how forwards either won or lost that game, both sides solid but unspectacular.

Then game was won and lost in the backs, ours being unable to unlock a cattlegate and Saints shifting very quickly.

Plus as was said the ptb, Saints controlled that well.

Seriously - RL fans are a strange, strange breed.

Most of the year they spend arguing the total and utter ineptness of Jon Wilkin. Then, schizophrenically, they're claiming he's the "deciding factor" - completely outplaying far more established playmakers with a mesmerising performance.

The reality is pretty simple, really: Wilkin had the time and space to execute a pre-planned kicking strategy. He was able to do so because his forwards won the midfield battle.

Not to detract from JW's performance, but had GoB a similar platform on which to work he would more than likely have done the same.

To be fair to Sims, his stats were better than I expected. Not great, mind. But at least good enough to say he didn't throw the towel in.

Ignoring Asotasi, I think the biggest disappointment was Chris Hill. I know he's won over Warrington fans with some great performances since his move to the club. But his showing against Saints was seriously below par.

Certainly going into the game I figured Hill was the biggest threat to Saints' dominance of the midfield. Had he got rolling forward - over the advantage line - Warrington would have been in a far better position to dictate the flow of the game. As such he never materialised.

Lies damn lies etc. You're getting a little lob on regarding this pack performance on Thursday aren't you? I'll just remind you as good as amor and walmsley were on Thursday (the latter was a pudding late last season for you) hill is a better player than both.

You mean - the latter who pretty much ended Wigan's resistance in the Grand Final (not to mention Catalans, Leeds etc.)?

If that's what you call a pudding I'll take three with extra chocolate chips.

Having had chance to read through this, if Saints' pack was so dominant, why was it so close.

The game finished five tries to four. We engineered three, with an additional score from a charge-down. Saints engineered three, with a fortuitous last tackle bounce and a spilt ball that sat nicely leading to another try.

Under analysis, it doesn't appear to imply a pack being so dominant, as this usually leads to a lopsided score line.

There was a stat showing that after 70 minutes, Warrington had made less than 900 metres. You ended up with 1200 so literally made a quarter of your metres in the last 10 minutes, the period of the game which Saints will be very disappointed with.

Three tries from dummy half and one from a charge down. As you all know, any tries conceded from dummy half are poor and Saints won't be happy with it.

Still, I'd despair at anyone that watched the game in a balanced fashion who couldn't recognise that Saints absolutely battered Warrington up front. It isn't going too far to suggest that Saints will probably feel that they should have won by 20/30 points. Obviously, the final period made the scoreline look close; to anyone there the game was anything but. Saints fans, players and coaches know it and so do Warrington's.

Anyhow, gone now. We move on to next week.

One point on the dummy half tries. I can't speak for other teams, but Warrington are making a habit of scoring tries against Saints from dummy half in the last few seasons. Why? Because you're defensive line is so good at (ahem) "moving up quickly" that you leave gaping gaps behind the ptb. When we're within touching distance of your line and your defense is, (ahem again) "reluctant" to stand on the line as the rules dictate it generally leads to a try. Just thought I'd mention it.

How things have changed when Cunningham used to go over from dummy half!

Given that Cunningham possessed enormous leg strength and a low centre of gravity which made it incredibly difficult for three men (let alone one) to stop his momentum - I seriously doubt any coach conceding such a try would categorise it as being as serious a defensive blunder as allowing a prop to throw an outrageous dummy and walk under the posts with nary a hand laid on him.