I just said that ha ha

I guess my point in that space is that our players imo are good enough to play better than we do.

Injuries.

It's true that many of our victories have been founded upon top quality defence - our much improved defensive stat this year is rarely quoted even though it's half the game. When we have wavered it has generally been our defence that has failed us. This is where I think Agar is right to be honest and I called it a while back. When we have injuries to key players that is EXACTLY the time when you play it tight and try to use your strengths on the field - our forwards this year. When we didn't win the battle up front then we have struggled and lost badly at times. What I wouldn't do as a coach is be in the situation where I was struggling for a halfback combination and tell the team to go out and throw the ball around willy nilly. If the quality of distribution is below par then that's simply asking for it.

Yes a team that plays champagne rugby is better to watch. Isnt that obvious. (teams that perform better are more likely to win things and be successful over time too)

We've had our fair share Dave. Including to one or both halves for all but 4 games this year.

I think that's the crux of our disagreement in regard to the halves we have used

And thats what i meant. With the injuries in our side the top teams and top players raise their games to compensate through the adversity that injuries bring. By and large we havent. We just play boring rugby because its the only way Agar knows to coach.

Just to quantify what i mean by good enough, i only mean that they should be able to pass a ball. It's not asking for too much is it.

The injury situation will always be bad at this club while the agenda is to sign/resign 30+ year old players with a history of injury problems.

But to do so we again need the thought process that we paid for ala Shaun Long, Richard Horne, Craig Fitzgibbon out on the park together to push us around and make the smart plays otherwise the players turn back to one out rugby which is exactly what we have seen ..
BUT even without that thought process were sat in 4th Dave???

I beg to differ Dave, its always nice to have some dancing half backs doing their stuff and centres breaking lines left right and centre however i would choose winning ugly over losing in lights every day of the week , I cant believe you would rather play fancy footie but loose just to prove a point?? doesnt make sense

I don't see how players like Manu, Fitz, O'Meley and Tickle can raise there games anymore.
We don't have anyone who can raise there game to control a game which is what we need. Except maybe Berro.

No.

Trouble is quality halves can also draw defenders, organise, kick long into space or short in-goal. If only passing was all we needed.

It's a different sport but i'm sure Arsenal fans would sacrifice a bit of their champagne football for a trophy or two.

I wonder what you would say if we announced we had signed a certain Australian test captain, SOO captain and player of the year umpteenth times ?? who is past 30 with injuries all over his past

Good sides can win when playing ugly but they still put some entertaining performances in through the season.

I'd say thank for that. Having said that if we announced we'd signed that injury prone Kyle Eastmond I'd be gutted

But my point again that's been missed is the team that plays the better rugby is generally the one that rises to the top and wins things over a sustained period of time. I'd like us to aspire to be the greatest rather than tolerate winning ugly.

He'll be missing a few games next season.

Cas at home and away was entertaining as was Saints home and away.

So what do we work on in training? Thought processes can be conditioned based on practise.

In the absence of our usual 'thought leaders' why aren't players stepping up into those gaps?

Starting with the real basics though. We seem to even lack those.

Not every player can suddenly become a leader and organiser. That's why only some players play in those roles while others don't. Surely that is a given isn't it ?

Not really. I firmly believe that players can change their game temporarily to fill a gap based on the correct practice and coaching. Obviously not the the high standard of a natural player in that position but as a stop gap. Thats back to the point before where i firmly believe a combination of Horne, Washy, Berro, Turner, Whiting should all be good enough to give some creativity in attack.

As big an issue as our attack is it's up there with our inconsistency overall as a worry. Our defence for example against Wakey was woeful. Problems all over the place for me. (as you'd probably gather)