: Thu Jul 09, 2009 6:30 pm  

Tony Stark wrote:

With not having Sky and disliking the BBC's 'coverage' I haven't seen a great deal of other teams games this season but I'll wager that we haven't seen a hell of a lot of open and expansive rugby when compared to say 2006

You talk about it as if in previous seasons Harlequins RL, Hull KR, Huddersfield et al were turfing the ball around like it was Wide-to-West every single minute. It wasn't. The same 2006 Saints team that you are waxing lyrical were not a fling it around type side. The success of that side was built on rock solid defence. I seem to recall quite clearly people moaning about that 2006 side for being boring. Of course I was one of those stating the 2006 side was a great side that set a new defensive standard for rugby league in this country and was continually reminding some other parts of our support about how great a side it was. To most that side was boring until we won everything.

: Thu Jul 09, 2009 7:28 pm  

{Hogan} wrote:

Speaking to a few Saints fans recently, the general feeling is that they are getting bored with Superleague, bored with RL in general and more importantly bored with St Helens.

Its strange how winning games easily, winning the comp year after year can become boring, but somehow for a number of Saints fans it is.

Some fans were getting bored by winning with ease. They wanted competitive games. I think that is spot on. I don't like walkovers myself. But during the last three seasons, Saints have experienced a fair few. Not even Wigan were competing during 2007 and 2008 (especially 2008 - Cardiff anyone?!). Wire had become our biggest derby simply because they always seemed to get us then let us go and the home game with Wire at the back end of the season has to go down as one of the best derbies for ages, simply because of that drop goal.

This season, though, Saints themselves have been boring. They have looked distinctly uninspired and uninspiring except in the two Leeds matches (especially away for the CC round) and at Wakefield, where we won by a walkover probably because of the week Wakey had experienced at that time. We just haven't seen the quality of play we have gotten used to, and some matches have been dire simply because of the way Saints have been playing. I'm bored with that Saints. They don't entertain at any level. When I'm standing on the terrace and all around me people are having conversations about entirely different things, not watching the match at all, then something has seriously gone missing. Last season, not even London Skolars visiting KR brought that reaction. People might have been bored with walkovers, but they didn't appear to me to be bored with Saints.

: Thu Jul 09, 2009 8:01 pm  

McClennan wrote:

You talk about it as if in previous seasons Harlequins RL, Hull KR, Huddersfield et al were turfing the ball around like it was Wide-to-West every single minute. It wasn't.

Cut me some slack eh McLa i was posting at 1:02 am I didn't mean it to sound like I thought that - anyone would be foolish to think that every team played with the same type of flair and tenacity we did at that time, I just meant that i recall the game generally being more... unrestricted?

The same 2006 Saints team that you are waxing lyrical were not a fling it around type side. The success of that side was built on rock solid defence. I seem to recall quite clearly people moaning about that 2006 side for being boring. Of course I was one of those stating the 2006 side was a great side that set a new defensive standard for rugby league in this country and was continually reminding some other parts of our support about how great a side it was. To most that side was boring until we won everything.

In truth I had my season wrong there, it would have been 2005 I was thinking of (Albert's last season?, the year we sold a t-shirt claiming we were 'just like watching Brazil'). As I recall we lost more games against the top sides than we won - most likely a factor in us needing to focus on our defence the following season.

Of course hindsight is a wonderful thing and as entertaining as we were to watch we saw no silverwear.

: Thu Jul 09, 2009 11:15 pm  

{Hogan} wrote:

Speaking to a few Saints fans recently, the general feeling is that they are getting bored with Superleague, bored with RL in general and more importantly bored with St Helens.

Its strange how winning games easily, winning the comp year after year can become boring, but somehow for a number of Saints fans it is.

At least one thing you can say as a Wigan fan is that there is never a dull moment and if nothing else its "interesting".

I thought you were giving up watching Wigan because you were sick of losing? At least thats what the thread said that you started a month ago....

: Thu Jul 09, 2009 11:30 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

When I'm standing on the terrace and all around me people are having conversations about entirely different things, not watching the match at all, then something has seriously gone missing.

Ended up doing that myself at the Celtic game. I honestly don't remeber watching any of the second half it was that dull. For a good 10-15 minutes of that game i was discussing the SL grounds i have visited and was completely oblivious to the game.

It has been similar in a few games this year.

I'll never be bored of Saints though, i'd rather win ugly than play excellent and be defeated. Everybody obviously would love to play fantastic and win. Even if we were bottom of the league playing terrible i would still be there.

The fact we are top of the league is worrying by virtue of the fact that we have been poor all year.

This upcoming game at Wire is the most excited i've been in ages for a game. Simply because i expect us to get defeated. I'm really looking forward to the atmosphere of being underdogs (in my mind at least) for a game.

I go to all the Saints games at home and any Wire home games if they don't clash, but outside of that i find it difficult to watch an entire rugby match on Sky. Just because the excitment factor seems to have diminished rapidly.

: Sat Jul 18, 2009 6:31 pm  

Saint Simon wrote:

In the interests of fairness, it think the envy-o-meter needs to be turned down to around 80ish

I think 50 ish is more realistic.

: Sat Jul 18, 2009 11:25 pm  

Rogues Gallery wrote:

I think 50 ish is more realistic.

I don't.

: Sun Jul 19, 2009 1:19 am  

Small club who thrive on the CC.


Take that away Stains are mid table at best.


We all know it, only a few Stains fans admit it.

: Sun Jul 19, 2009 9:50 am  

XBrettKennyX wrote:

Small club who thrive on the CC.


Take that away Stains are mid table at best.


We all know it, only a few Stains fans admit it.

Of course... The current SL table is just a conspiracy...

: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:31 am  

XBrettKennyX wrote:

Small club who thrive on the CC.


Take that away Stains are mid table at best.


We all know it, only a few Stains fans admit it.

This is the single worst trolling attempt ever.