Re: Brave but ultimately poor : Sat Sep 21, 2013 7:01 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

What was your opinion on it then? Did you think having Wello on the bench till the hour mark was a good move? Did we attack well? Did we not defend well? Which bit of it are you referring to when you ask if I was watching another game?

You say we were ultimately poor and go on to praise how good Sinfield and Burrow were, but they scored the same amount of tries as us and had more territory than us. So where Leeds poor offensively aswell?

Considering we have no half backs and a back rower has had to fill in all season I thought we did pretty well to be honest. It was an intense game (it would've been fitting of a Grand Final it was that good) where defences were strong, it wasn't really the kind of night where the attacks shine.

Re: Brave but ultimately poor : Sat Sep 21, 2013 7:06 pm  

thought your lads played really well, great game

[Sadfish]

Re: Brave but ultimately poor : Sat Sep 21, 2013 7:37 pm  

I thought it was a good game, Leeds had more chances, more territory, but Saints defence held well. In saying that I didnt think either would go on to win the SL this year.

Re: Brave but ultimately poor : Sat Sep 21, 2013 7:55 pm  

roader wrote:

Wellens should have been at fullback all season. I'm still to be convinced that Lomax is a fullback.

I'm not sure why. He's a decent defender, can take a high ball and is much more dangerous in attack than Wellens. The fact that he gains us an extra 20-30m on pretty much every kick return also takes pressure off the rest of the team.

The swap was a no brainer for me.

Re: Brave but ultimately poor : Sat Sep 21, 2013 8:06 pm  

Who are these magic fix all halfbacks that are off contract?

Re: Brave but ultimately poor : Sat Sep 21, 2013 8:12 pm  

Blobbynator wrote:

You say we were ultimately poor and go on to praise how good Sinfield and Burrow were, but they scored the same amount of tries as us and had more territory than us. So where Leeds poor offensively aswell?

Yes, I'd say so. They had the lions share of the possession and territory throughout the game. At half time they'd had 20 more play the balls than us and the graphic Clarke does which does where those play the balls happened were telling. We had little ball outside of our own half and only 2 in the opposition 10m. I think by comparison they'd had 17 in ours. It was a combination of a remarkable defensive performance and a lack of clinical execution from Leeds. They put too much ball down and didn't take anywhere near enough advantage of how on top they were throughout the game. The game was the equivalent of a penalty shootout win for a big side in football playing against a minnow, dominating the game but unable to score.

Blobbynator wrote:

Considering we have no half backs and a back rower has had to fill in all season I thought we did pretty well to be honest.

That's why I put my opening line. Given what we are, it wasn't a bad performance, it was a brave fall onto the sword if you will. It is however completely the club's fault that we went into the season with that squad and that shouldn't be forgotten because of the upturn in form towards the end of the season. A lot of mistakes were made before the season even started and Brown can't come out of it with a completely positive scorecard either. Whilst he has to a degree steadied a ship he unbalanced, he has left the side looking pretty shambolic with the ball in big games. Signing Luke Walsh is a positive move, but it isn't going to solve all our problems in one go. He absolutely MUST have a partner next season and his partner ABSOLUTELY CANNOT have the surname Wheeler, Hohaia or Wellens.

Re: Brave but ultimately poor : Sat Sep 21, 2013 8:18 pm  

Magic Superbeetle wrote:

Who are these magic fix all halfbacks that are off contract?

Rangi Chase, Sam Hopkins, Jacob Miller have all moved clubs. All those would have been good enough. The new stand off doesn't have to be a world class player either. They just have to be an established halfback with a bit of pace or an eye for a pass, someone to take the playmaking pressure off Walsh.

Re: Brave but ultimately poor : Sat Sep 21, 2013 8:33 pm  

I often think this saddo is a pi%s taking wiginer who knows how to use the spell checker.

Re: Brave but ultimately poor : Sat Sep 21, 2013 8:37 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

Rangi Chase, Sam Hopkins, Jacob Miller have all moved clubs. All those would have been good enough. The new stand off doesn't have to be a world class player either. They just have to be an established halfback with a bit of pace or an eye for a pass, someone to take the playmaking pressure off Walsh.

So you are saying Sam Hopkins is a good enough stand-off to play for Saints and we should have signed him?
You aren't even aware that he is a prop forward, are you.

Re: Brave but ultimately poor : Sat Sep 21, 2013 8:39 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

Rangi Chase, Sam Hopkins, Jacob Miller have all moved clubs. All those would have been good enough. The new stand off doesn't have to be a world class player either. They just have to be an established halfback with a bit of pace or an eye for a pass, someone to take the playmaking pressure off Walsh.

Rangi Chase - not off contract, after spending 800k on cladding I don't think it's really fair to ask the club to spend more on playing roster, maybe in a couple of years after initial overheads etc and further to that he asked for a massive salary which would cause a massive imbalance in player roster.

Jacob Miller - firstly quota, secondly because he's set the world alight with his attacking at hull? He's taken a lot of slack from the hull fans (to be fair who hasn't) and may well prove over the next 5 years to develop into a decent player, but he's not at the moment, one of the reasons why hulls attack is a major complaint for their fans - and if we want a project, stick Yates in the team or whoever else is in the youth set up - surely developing our own, British players would make more sense?

Sam Hopkins - untried untested at super league level - and you want to throw him straight into the 6 ? We may of been in for him and he chose Wigan and would of been preferable to miller but again is a another project and whilst he may or may not have more "potential" than players already here but, for example, at Wigan he's behind green and smith and will be able to develop in his own time, if we had of signed him as starting 6 you'd of been saying he can't go straight into the Wigan team why can he go straight in ours

And this is all irrespective, as these are all missed out on people - I asked who is the AVAILABLE signings - not who could we of signed at some point in the past (that Lockyer player would of been great ) who would improve on the team?

Fo rthe record, I agree to an extent a 6 would be good, lance for me is much better interchanging with Roby at hooker. But out of everyone available for the position (unless a surprise appears in the World Cup, who is magically not quota) I can't see anyone I would rather have then wheeler (for 20 minutes) and Wilkin - not ideal certainly but better than making a signing for the sake of a signing!