Re: This is not St Helens RLFC : Mon Aug 17, 2015 11:44 pm  

Twentyman wrote:

Haha, I'm gonna regret engaging with you but I can't resist.

The difference between last year and 99 was that last year we had several key players injured and adjusted our style of play to win matches. I have no issue with the way Brown won the league and GF. It was fantastic.

We've had arguably worse injuries this season and in case you somehow missed it - we've adjusted our style of play on several occasions. At the start of the year we played some of our best rugby attacking the line with two props, one off the shoulder of the other and delaying the final pass for them to take advantage of the space. We were also kicking very early in our sets. Then after we lost both Vea and Greenwood we seemed to stop running tight loop-arounds entirely and suddenly we weren't kicking early any more. Admittedly we've not given the ball as much width as I like - but I have to say we have also scored some absolutely spectacular tries, too.

Comparisons with Brown are utterly pointless unless you are prepared to judge both sides up to THIS point in both seasons. It's hilarious how everyone is Brown's biggest supporter today - but I remember some of the vitriol and bile which was spewed in his direction prior to the playoffs. It wasn't pretty and many of the criticisms leveled at him are similar to those I'm seeing now.

In 99, we had strike players who could change a game and play exciting rugby league if they were let off the leash

The point is - they rarely were. And we still won the GF. Which says precisely WHAT? In your own time, please.

(As Millward did with them the season after) such as Newlove, Iro, Long, Martyn, Sullivan etc

Are we talking about the same Saints team, here? Prior to Millward's arrival at Knowsley Road, St. Helens had - FOR DECADES - emphasized attacking primarily down the flanks. Year after year our top-tryscorers were Vollenhoven, Ledger, Quirk, Hunte, Sullivan etc. with the likes of Newlove, Elia and even Paul Loughlin not far behind them.

I agree that Ian Millward added mobility and athleticism to the side - but you are completely and utterly WRONG in suggesting he added "width". On the contrary, Ian Millward CONTRACTED Saints attacking style considerably - not least because he placed such a great emphasis on players getting to their feet quickly, thus enabling our dummy-halves to make several scoots per set of six.

As stated, prior to Millward we always scored heaps through the outside backs. Of course, the likes of Sullivan and Newlove continued to score - but if you actually bother to check the stats our most prolific players (Long, Martyn, Cunningham, Sculthorpe & Wellens) all made bank down the CENTRE channel.

Just because Saints had the kind of talent in the outside backs who could score out of nothing - this doesn't mean Ian Millward was an "expansive coach". He was not.

The club prides itself on its entertainment tag and its fans refer to them as that, hence the title of this board. It's in the CULTURE (I'll use patronising capitals like you) of the club to play exciting, expansive rugby league. Only a few seasons ago, Mike Rush referred to us as having a culture much like what Ajax, Barcelona etc have in football for playing the game in an exciting way.

Completely subjective. We've played great rugby down the middle (under MILLWARD) and out wide (primarily under Bomber and even Hanley). So which method fits the "Saints Culture"?

Consider Wigan. John Monie was an insanely successful coach and arguably their best. He was also boring as hell.

The truth is "Culture" is in the eye of the beholder. I remember back in the eighties when people were saying the British game was far more entertaining than the ARL. Perhaps it was. But it didn't stop us being smashed from pillar to post each time the Kangaroos toured or we went over there.

Take a boxing tip from your mate, St. Pete, "Styles make fights".

The club up until recently have tried to sign rugby league players who fit in with the culture of the club.

Unless the club is dumber than I think they are talking more about things like behaviour, responsibilities etc. It would be completely ludicrous for any club to commit FOREVER to a particular style of play. I mean, what happens if the opposition devise a counter-strategy? Do we just soldier on taking one pounding after another - ad infinitum? Or do we change? I think we both know the answer to that question.

The CULTURE (How do you keep up the capitals without feeling like a proper nobstick?)

EASY.

of the club I'm sure will be pummelled into the young kids who sign for the club. Our 1st team is full of the kids who have come through the system. A few of the tries we've scored this season imo have more than shown we do have the personnel to ditch this boring brand of rugby and play some decent expansive stuff instead.

Let me ask you a question. You've just praised Brown to the heavens. I'm prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt over whether you thought similarly during those periods when we were getting pummelled last season.

But what if I said that it was Nathan Brown who advised Cunningham that this strategy best suited our current crop?

You'd have to think he'd have offered some kind of advice to the incoming coach and given Brown's success (and Cunningham's position as a complete novice) you'd have to think Keiron would have taken such very seriously.

Ultimately, it's an entertainment business. People will stop going to the games and will just pick and choose games instead if this brand of ZZZzzzz rugby keeps getting served up.

A classic example of "glass half empty/full" if ever I've seen one. Let me remind you that Saints have been in more competitive and incredibly close matches this season than I can remember in a long, long time.

Isn't THAT entertainment? What more do you WANT? Or are you one of those people who only comes alive after we've sunk sixty points into the opposition?

I can't wait to read your patronising response were you will no doubt use the capitals, put some words in bold and underline others.

You keep throwing 'em, I'll keep hitting the home runs.

Re: This is not St Helens RLFC : Tue Aug 18, 2015 6:27 am  

It's been so peaceful on here last week or two and now back to the constant "im know better then you" debate.

Every theread turns into a debate.

Re: This is not St Helens RLFC : Tue Aug 18, 2015 7:19 am  

St pete wrote:

It's been so peaceful on here last week or two and now back to the constant "im know better then you" debate.

Every theread turns into a debate.

Seriously, I just don't understand what you aren't getting here. This is a public discussion board - the operative word being "discussion", "debate" or whatever the hell else you want to call it.

If you wanted peaceful quiet and goodwill to all men shouldn't you have joined a monastery or a hippie commune instead?

The strange thing is you have absolutely no qualms about aggressively going after anyone who doesn't agree with your opinion. Yet somehow I'm the villain?

Re: This is not St Helens RLFC : Tue Aug 18, 2015 7:21 am  

Re: This is not St Helens RLFC : Tue Aug 18, 2015 9:12 am  

Mugwump wrote:

We've had arguably worse injuries this season and in case you somehow missed it - we've adjusted our style of play on several occasions. At the start of the year we played some of our best rugby attacking the line with two props, one off the shoulder of the other and delaying the final pass for them to take advantage of the space. We were also kicking very early in our sets. Then after we lost both Vea and Greenwood we seemed to stop running tight loop-arounds entirely and suddenly we weren't kicking early any more. Admittedly we've not given the ball as much width as I like - but I have to say we have also scored some absolutely spectacular tries, too.

Comparisons with Brown are utterly pointless unless you are prepared to judge both sides up to THIS point in both seasons. It's hilarious how everyone is Brown's biggest supporter today - but I remember some of the vitriol and bile which was spewed in his direction prior to the playoffs. It wasn't pretty and many of the criticisms leveled at him are similar to those I'm seeing now.

The point is - they rarely were. And we still won the GF. Which says precisely WHAT? In your own time, please.

Are we talking about the same Saints team, here? Prior to Millward's arrival at Knowsley Road, St. Helens had - FOR DECADES - emphasized attacking primarily down the flanks. Year after year our top-tryscorers were Vollenhoven, Ledger, Quirk, Hunte, Sullivan etc. with the likes of Newlove, Elia and even Paul Loughlin not far behind them.

I agree that Ian Millward added mobility and athleticism to the side - but you are completely and utterly WRONG in suggesting he added "width". On the contrary, Ian Millward CONTRACTED Saints attacking style considerably - not least because he placed such a great emphasis on players getting to their feet quickly, thus enabling our dummy-halves to make several scoots per set of six.

As stated, prior to Millward we always scored heaps through the outside backs. Of course, the likes of Sullivan and Newlove continued to score - but if you actually bother to check the stats our most prolific players (Long, Martyn, Cunningham, Sculthorpe & Wellens) all made bank down the CENTRE channel.

Just because Saints had the kind of talent in the outside backs who could score out of nothing - this doesn't mean Ian Millward was an "expansive coach". He was not.

Completely subjective. We've played great rugby down the middle (under MILLWARD) and out wide (primarily under Bomber and even Hanley). So which method fits the "Saints Culture"?

Consider Wigan. John Monie was an insanely successful coach and arguably their best. He was also boring as hell.

The truth is "Culture" is in the eye of the beholder. I remember back in the eighties when people were saying the British game was far more entertaining than the ARL. Perhaps it was. But it didn't stop us being smashed from pillar to post each time the Kangaroos toured or we went over there.

Take a boxing tip from your mate, St. Pete, "Styles make fights".

Unless the club is dumber than I think they are talking more about things like behaviour, responsibilities etc. It would be completely ludicrous for any club to commit FOREVER to a particular style of play. I mean, what happens if the opposition devise a counter-strategy? Do we just soldier on taking one pounding after another - ad infinitum? Or do we change? I think we both know the answer to that question.

EASY.

Let me ask you a question. You've just praised Brown to the heavens. I'm prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt over whether you thought similarly during those periods when we were getting pummelled last season.

But what if I said that it was Nathan Brown who advised Cunningham that this strategy best suited our current crop?

You'd have to think he'd have offered some kind of advice to the incoming coach and given Brown's success (and Cunningham's position as a complete novice) you'd have to think Keiron would have taken such very seriously.

A classic example of "glass half empty/full" if ever I've seen one. Let me remind you that Saints have been in more competitive and incredibly close matches this season than I can remember in a long, long time.

Isn't THAT entertainment? What more do you WANT? Or are you one of those people who only comes alive after we've sunk sixty points into the opposition?

You keep throwing 'em, I'll keep hitting the home runs.

Was that a post on public forum or a prologue for a book?

I was never a supporter of Brown. i've admitted on other threads that I was one of the people shouting for him to go. I wasn't sad that he left. However I have full admiration for the way he got us the league leaders shield and the GF win with so many key players out.

I'm not saying middle is boring and width is exciting. Of course exciting tries can be scored up the middle. What I'm saying is that 3, 4 or 5 drives up a pitch and a kick is boring. Not putting the ball through a few pairs of hands to create a gap is boring. Not offloading is boring. Our current style of play is boring, Mugwump. Defend it all you like. It's boring, restrictive, unimaginative rugby. And that's not the philosophy or culture of the club.

It was interesting reading what Radford had to say after the game. He acknowledged that some of their rugby was really exciting, that they were playing more ad-lib and freely, but that he didn't want to coach that because it would give him a heart attack.

I'm glad I'm not a Hull fan, because hearing your coach say that is so sad. I worry that KC might share them thoughts on his own players.

I'm not interested in trying to out battle you like some busy little keyboard warrior on a RL forum so I'll finish up.

I remember watching a documentary on Man Utd in the early 90's during the 1st success in 26 years. I was expecting some epic, William Wallace style speech to his players before he sent them out onto the pitch...but all he said was "go out there and express yourselves". That was it.

I appreciate there's a lot more to coaching than that, but I loved it. He said something similar in his autobiography a couple of years back too.

Sport is at its best when the shackles are off (That's me saying that not Ferguson )

Re: This is not St Helens RLFC : Tue Aug 18, 2015 10:06 am  

I wasn't a fan of Brown's time. If you'd have told me mid way through his tenure that he'd win the GF I'd have been very surprised.
What he did was random. Not just the GF, but other big games were won somehow, despite us looking poor with the ball for long periods and always a bit shakey out wide. Its still a head scratcher for me know.

KC has had us doing some excellent things. Early in the season we looked very ggod. We had good shape with Vea and Greenwood proving a real handful in their channels. The kick chase was excellent and we had plenty of big front rowers bashing it up. The defence was also very successful.

We don't (and haven't for ages) spread the ball to the 3/4s well, which is why the more physical Turner is getting more joy with the ball than Percy, who would thrive more of early ball in space.

One wonders if KC has got too obsessed with things like a kick chase being the dominant strengths for the team, and is negelecting creativity.

We simply don't test defences, its too easy to read and so easy to defend, we're just relying on the size of our lads to break through, but its too easy for the defence to brickwall us in the middle when we're so predicable. Not only does that make thing 10 times harder for the big men, but you'll see certain players playing with a whole lot less confidence and enthusiasm if they're getting lined up every time.