The postives for me was our defence, looked pretty good, dont remember Salford making a clean break there tweo trys where from a kick (We must be the worst side in the league at dealing with attacking kicks) and a good scrum move.

Our long kicking game was good with a very good chase, a few sets we kept them well contained, disapline like last week let us down, luckilky theres was worst.

Again the effort is there, but some our coaching and ability of the team is letting us down.

Our attacking play and short kicking game is shocking, we simple have no idea, even on the 4th tackle near Salfords line we are doing an insideball to Dowes or Radford.

If we finish in the Play offs with the sqaud and coach we have I think we will have done well.

It isn't just a lack of pace. There's a lack of any kind of disguise, to the extent that even on something like a wedge, a play that doesn't really need anything special to look like you could be giving it to either runner, it's painfully obvious who's getting it every time. And the accuracy and timing of their passes are equally poor.

Everything coming off them just looks too structured and, as a result, is very easy to read. They never seem to actually make a decision with the ball, with every pass or dummy and drop of the shoulder appearing planned well in advance.

I agree and the few times either of them makes the right decision with the ball in hand is more down to the law of averages rather than them actually picking the right play. Thorman in particular actually goes against the law of averages and it gets it wrong far more times than he gets it right. Several times on Friday night we had created a gap out wide (with Motu coming around the back) and every single time he would pass it to the one player who could be easily tackled. So frustrating.

I've said many times that for sure technical ability Tommy Lee is the best passer of the ball at the club. Hornes passing is way too slow and not particularly accurate which is why, for the balance of the side, I would move him to FB next season (assuming Motu is going) and sign a SO who can actually create to play alongside Long.

I don't have a problem with Horne at stand-off alongside a creative, organising half. Give him a free role there and he's got enough ability to cause any defence problems. His problem comes when he's restricted by playing to a rigid structure as that will invariably require him to be shipping the ball out much more often. This isn't something he's good at, with slow, inaccurate passes. When he's allowed to think on his feet and pick from three or four options on a play, he's much better (although he does tend to go on his own too often still), but that will only come when someone else is there to dominate and take the attention away from him, giving him a bit more space. Thorman doesn't do this and Horne is easier to shut down as a result.

And I don't think he should be anywhere near fullback.

I think he could do a good enough job there and with a few more games to settle into the position could be more than adequate. For the balance of the team I'd rather go with

1. Horne
6. New player
7. Long

than

1. New FB
6. Horne
7. Long

I just think that would give us more attacking options across the pitch and make us less predictable.

Depends on who the new player was, I think we already have our 1,6 and 7 signed on for next season in Tansey, Horne and Long.

Absolutely. I'm thinking someone who has a good passing game, decent kicking game and can take the line on. A bit of extra leadership wouldn't go a miss either.

Think Tansey plays anywhere from 1 - 7 doesnt he. I do think he is our new number 1 though, as I can see Tony leaving.

I'd much rather have Tansey at fullback than Horne. Horne could be adequate, and almost certainly would be, but that isn't enough. He's got plenty to offer at 6, which suits his game much more, and should be fine there alongside Long.

I'd rather have a much better HB combination and an adequate FB than a very good FB and an adequate HB combination. Having said that Horne's wages would be wasted at FB but he should have some of that not count on the cap due to the 10 year rule.

I think Horne and Long would be more than adequate as halves, potentially a very good combination. And I also think you're underestimating the importance of a fullback.

I think your overstating it to a degree as well. I'd rather we had more options in attack than relying on a quick PTB from the FB.

A good fullback gives you options in attack. Often they are the player either making the break or providing the incisive pass.

The importance of which would be diminished if the HB's were creating. If the pass doesn't get wide quickly enough (due to poor passing) it negates the option of the FB joining in anyway.

Yes, but we already have players (either currently or signed up) who can/will provide good enough service. At hooker, both Lee and Berrigan have a good range of passing. At loose we'll hopefully have either one of those two or Washbrook, again someone who can pass well enough. Then Long at half is more than good enough. And Horne has done the job in the past and can provide good enough service when he's not asked to do so too often.

The fact that Tansey is playing fantastically well at full back in Oz currently suggests to me also that he will be our starting fb.

I can see the sense it what your saying but I disagree that Horne's passing is good enough to offer the option of getting the ball wide quickly. I'd like to see us have a more creative SO so that we can attack both flanks quickly and make us less predictable. That would mean Horne moving position and the only real option for that IMO is FB.

A team which spanked Leeds at headingley this season



Thought the first half we looked good going forward until we got into striking distance of their try line. It became obvious that the players as so nervous about doing the wrong thing that they end up doing nothing.

Second half was the same old jitters.

Lasty came on the field with water bottles and told Thorman he was coming off. Lasty then slipped and fell over, thats whatbthe cheer was for.

I thought i would dig this post up for some of the posters on here to eat humble pie after slagging Hull,Agar and Salford off.And just to remind them what cr@p they spout on here.
Salford 20 St Helens 10

doesn't change the fact that Hull-Salford was a poor skilled, painfully slow game. Even the Salford fans commented the same on their board.

Salford clearly had the ability and the tactics to step it up against Saints, when have we shown the ability to up our game and produce a shock result in the last 2 years?

I don't think so at all, so because Salford beat Saints that means are not allowed to be unhappy that we performed poorly, luckily scrapped a win against a even worse side. They may have beat Saints last night, doesn't change the fact Salford are the second worst side in Super League and we should be doing better. BTW Agar is still crap.

That tannoy woman sounds absoloutely dreadful, no need to shout!!

She's toned it down a bit, believe it or not.

Scant consolation for me. No humble pie that I can see needs scoffing