I also don't think FTV's are quite right anyway. Thornley, Isa and definitely Byrne are all in contention for first 17 with everyone fit and available. Only possibly Hurrell from Saints could be said to be the same. That alone gives us more competition for places and genuine depth.

In addition he's missed Hallsall in the 'extras' who has as much experience as some mentioned in the Saints lot and has, in fact, already featured this season. Add to that Miski who has played international rugby and has also already featured this season and Hanley who has several first team appearances under his belt.

True enough. I think we benefit from the versatility of our squad as well. So yeah, the quality in both first choice 17’s may not be comparable like for like but I think we can shuffle around our players and cover injuries better if we need to. That’s something that hasn’t been tested at Saints massively but one injury in the halves for them starts to cause real trouble, as it’s move Welsby and play a non specialist at fullback or play somebody out of position in the halves.

If we get an injury at fullback we can put in French, Hardaker or Hanley. An injury in the halves will mean we need to put Harry Smith in or move Field but then put French at fullback. An injury at hooker and we can put Cust or Leuluai in there or give a cracking young player (with plenty of Championship experience at the back of him) in Brad O’Neill a shot. We’ve loads of options in the outside backs and the back row as well.

Nobody is daft enough to suggest our 17 is on a par currently but it’s a long season and if both sides got tested with absences in certain positions, I think that’s an area we can potentially benefit from.

I'm sure FTV would disagree but I've felt for a while that Saints are more vulnerable to losing a few key players than we are. Their first choice may be stronger but losing players often considerably weakens them. We can lose players with little difference in quality across more positions. Saints lose Walmsley, Lomax, Makinson etc al and the replacements coming in are weaker. Ours, not so much.

Mind you, for any of that to matter Saints would have to face the type of injury toll that other teams have had to and, recently at least, that hasn't happened.

Like Hopoate? Who has played 74 games at full back in the NRL and 11 times for Tonga including during wins against Great Britain and Australia?

You can't list Field as a solid half back option for Wigan (having played there 10 times in his career) and Cust as an option at 9 (having NEVER started there in his career but has made 12 bench appearances so at most has played hooker 12 times) and then refer to Hopoate as a a "non specialist" full back, having racked up nearly 100 NRL and international appearances.

If you're going to compare and contrast then come on mate think about what you're saying.

And they can rightfully point to the fact that the drop off in quality wouldn’t be as great for us because the quality isn’t as high in the first place (in many cases) but the point still stands for me. We could manage 6 or 7 injuries pretty comfortably, without much of a drop off but they could really feel it.

As an example let’s say we take out the teams first choice 1,2,3,6,8,11 and a bench prop and that leaves us at-

French
Miski, Hardaker, Thornley, Marshall
Smith Leuluai
Havard Powell Ellis
Isa Farrell Smithies


Subs-Mago, Partington, Shorrocks, O’Neill

Saints

Hopoate
Sims Davies Percival Grace
Sironen Dodds
Paasi Roby Lees
Knowles Batchelor LMS

subs
Amor, Bell, Norman, Lussick

Our side would feel the absences to a degree but the Saints side is chalk and cheese for me and you’d really fancy getting at it.

What is Hopoate’s position?

He’s a centre, who has played plenty of fullback but he’s not a specialist fullback.

Put it this way on what I’ve seen of him, I’d love to see him at fullback ASAP.

He's played 97 career appearances at centre, 85 at full back. Not much in it at all.

Either way, you see my point don't you? He's far more of a full back than Field is a half back or Cust a hooker. So you can't refer to moving to Hopoate to 1 as "causing real trouble" yet say Field to halves or Cust to hooker is perfectly fine. Think about it.

Firstly-the old ‘think about it’ lines are below you mate, no need to try and be condescending. Let’s just talk rugby.

I’ve thought about it plenty by the way. You’ve seen how Field is playing at fullback haven’t you?! You saw how French played at fullback in 2020 as well I guess? Both have been superb and there’s no drop off either way. We move Field to six and Cust to hooker and you know what? I actually think we’d be a better team with 1-French, 6-Field and 9-Cust than we are with Field, Cust and Powell, so let alone a drop off, I think we could be better. Can you say the same if you have to put Hopoate at fullback in place of Welsby?! That’s the point I’m making.

Not being condescending at all mater, not my intention in the slightest. Just trying to make you see it's a bit far fetched what you're saying. You can't disregard a bloke with nearly 100 full back appearances at the very highest level but champion a player playing a position they have never started in, and not expect it to be questioned. You're just making an assumption he would be a good 9 or that Field would be a good half because it suits your argument. But then go on to say Hopoate playing in a position where he is tried and tested is "causing trouble." You can't skew the facts to win an argument. That was and is my point.

There's so many ifs and buts and maybes in this thread it's ridiculous. What if Saints lose 5 to injury. What if they lose 6. What if Wigan lose 5 but it's specifically positions X,Y, Z.....? It's one of the most utterly bizarre and purely hypothetical debates I have ever heard.

You're Wigan rugby, the self-proclaimed biggest club in the world, and you're consoling yourself with the fact that IF both clubs lost the same amount of players and it was the specific positions you mentioned, then you could have a right good go at us. Does that not concern you? Some Wigan fans have now created this notion that Saints don't get injuries and that we have poor depth to make you feel better about our recent dominance. It's complete and utter desperation.

You’ve not answered the question. Will you be a better side with Hopoate at fullback, rather than Welsby? My memory of Hopoate as a fullback is as a pretty average one and he’s lost pace since those days. Cade Cust has played as much at hooker as he has in the halves in his first team career at Manly and Field has played more halfback. So I can’t say Field is a specialist fullback but I also can’t say we may be better with him at 6?! Makes sense

They’re both far younger players, with less experience, so everything is more open with them than a lad whose legs are going moving back to fullback.

As for the whole debate, there’s no worry on my part, no straw clutching and you Saints fans can hate people pointing out your luck with a lack of an injury crisis all you like but it’s a fact that you’ve not had 5,6,7+ players missing at once (unless you’ve rested them) in this past few years. So a debate is here for you to take part in if you wish and it’s all about the depth of the squads and the versatility of the squads. If you don’t want to do that fair enough but you jumped in, so I presumed you did.

What is it exactly that you Saints fans will be happy with? Everyone saying you have the best 17, the best depth and are achieving what you’re achieving in a brilliant league, with an amazing standard? You’re just not going to get that unfortunately.

You’ll get the truth from me-

You’re easily the best side in the league, with the best 17 and decent depth, but that depth could be tested under certain circumstances and we could benefit from that if it ever comes to that. You’re winning your trophies in a league that’s overall standard is at an all time low (well in my lifetime anyway) IMO but that criticises the over 11 teams, not Saints. It’s up to all the other sides to catch you guys.

That's a complete myth that we haven't had 5 or 6 injuries at once though. It's not a fact at all. It's an argument created by the likes of you to clutch at straws and find something to cling on to. You seem to think if you say something enough times it turns into fact.

To answer your question, no we wouldn't be stronger with Hopoate at 1 than Welsby. But I never claimed otherwise. I simply said you can't dismiss someone with 100 games at full back but champion Cust as a 9 when he has never started there. It's all hypothetical, as is the rest of your argument.

We have been the best team over here for a number of years now and you don't do that without squad depth and versatility, it's that simple. You can tell us that we have neither and one day in the Hypothetical Grand Final we might come unstuck, but it doesn't make it true.

So through no choice of your own, you’ve had games with 5 or 6 players missing since the start of Holbrooks first season? I think that’s a myth on your part but feel free to prove otherwise (and focus on the through no choice of your own part, as in you haven’t rested people).

Even if you can drag a single game here or there up, it certainly won’t be over a sustained spell and that’s what other teams have to deal with.

I’ll give you a start actually on one game you did have 5 or 6 players missing from-

England vs The Combined Nations All Stars

June 25th 2021

No need to thank me

Hahahah I love how much that one still hurts you. Well as does all of our recent success to be fair. Hence your desperation on here.

You keep on writing down hypothetical line ups to create a scenario where you might have a good go at us. We will continue to win actual rugby matches (and trophies).

Imagine your biggest hope as a Wigan fan being that Saints might not have enough depth if a hypothetical set of injuries strikes one day. Wow.

It's blindingly obvious that injuries will weaken us more than Wigan because for us we will be replacing top quality with squad filler whereas Wigan will largley be replacing average with average bar a couple of positions.

Put another way, if Saints lost our 5 best (say Walmsley, Lomax, Knowles, Welsby and Roby) and Wigan lost five of their best also (say Field, French, Mago, Bateman, Powell for example) I'd back whatever XVII Saints fielded vs Wigan. So I'm not sure the depth thing really plays out.

Makinson, Simm, Percival, Hurrell, Grace, Hopoate, Dodd, Paasi, Lussick, Lees, Matautia, Bachelor, Bell and Sironen/LMS/Amor and Wingfield/Norman - that looks stronger than any Wigan team missing it's five best IMO.

So these games you’ve had 5 or 6 players missing from with injuries?

**Ignoring not letting players turn out in a fixture that was raising funds for a disabled ex player of your club**

I don't need to trawl through 3 years of fixtures to prove anything. I am not the one making things up and passing them off as facts.

As for the 2nd bit, we've been there and done it with that England game. You have zero to back it up, just your bitter little tears.

You don’t need to trawl through anything, you said it was a myth that you hadn’t had games with 5 or 6 missing with injuries, so you know it’s a fact that you have and therefore you must have these games/spells in your head already, surely? Either that or you were just guessing that it was a myth.

Which is it?

I remember quite a few times in the last 2-3 years where we've been missing 5 or so. Do I have the specifics to hand? No. Do I need to? No.

As I say, I'm not the one creating hypothetical scenarios to score points. I'll stick with facts and actual rugby matches that take place on a field, not in your mind.

EDIT: Quick search on Saints website turns up a game v Hull last year where we won rather convincingly without Makinson, Grace, Bentley, Lees and Wingfield. All injured. As I said, myth.

So you remember them but don’t have them to hand



“Yes m’lord I recall where I was when you say I robbed that post office but I don’t have the details to hand”

I think you best check my reply again pal.

Wingfield











One game, one game and including a reserve to make it 5. A proper crisis that pal



Heard Edna the tea lady did her back reaching for a pack of digestives as well pre game, so make it 6

Hold on, earlier you said "but it’s a fact that you’ve not had 5 players missing at once." I have disproved that so now it's got to be a certain 5 and for a prolonged period? Make your mind up.

I found that example in 30 seconds, there'll be many more. You just cant and wont accept the fact that not only have we cleaned up these last few years we have done so with injuries, just like every other team. If it makes you feel better to pretend that nasty St.Helens are only the best because we don't get injuries then you crack on mate. It's very very desperate.

Who is Wingfield?

Did I? The whole facts and myths thing is getting to you. I asked you to come up with all these times you’ve had 5 or 6 (plus missing) and you throw one game at me and include a bloody reserve



Thanks for proving the point.

That whole point has always been about how teams have to deal with an injury crisis (which I’d class as a regular period of missing 5 or 6 (plus) first choice players) and Saints never have.

I don’t know why that point gets to Saints fans so much. There’s nowt wrong with being lucky.

I think it’s that Danish girl who sang that ‘Saturday Night’ song back in the 90’s.

She missed Hull at home apparently.