Re: Player Ratings : Sun Oct 03, 2010 9:12 pm  

BOYD2 wrote:

11 TEEN.

Re: Player Ratings : Mon Oct 04, 2010 11:41 am  

Roby and Tony P were the top yardage makers in the match after Tomkins.

Re: Player Ratings : Mon Oct 04, 2010 8:26 pm  

McClennan wrote:

Roby and Tony P were the top yardage makers in the match after Tomkins.

Maybe he was hiding that much the Wigan defence didn't notice when he snuck past them?

Re: Player Ratings : Mon Oct 04, 2010 8:32 pm  

Billinge_Lump wrote:

Maybe he was hiding that much the Wigan defence didn't notice when he snuck past them?

I thought Tony P had a terrible game on Saturday (along with most of the team, obviously).

Re: Player Ratings : Mon Oct 04, 2010 9:36 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

:lol:

I thought Tony P had a terrible game on Saturday (along with most of the team, obviously).

I didn't think we were as bad as people are making out, but Wigan were exceptional and never allowed us into the game.

We were missing our two first choice half backs and played like we did. Missing Eastmond and Pryce cannot be underestimated, whilst I do not think it would have guaranteed a win, we'd have been in with a chance of winning with five minutes left IMO. The pack was fighting a losing battle because of this, with Wigan picking up possession in far better positions than we did and there was also us making mistakes that cost us, and handed them, tries.

I know you have a bit of a thing for him, but Smith for me showed why we were correct in letting him go. He had an very good game against Wire, but was little better than average against Huddersfield and was worse on Saturday. His kicking game was poor and he offered nothing with ball in hand. We looked better when Lomax moved more centrally and Roby came on as we finally gave their defence something to think about.

Wigan's defence was intense, and we didn't have the players to stretch that, they did in Tomkins at full back and while we were reduced to one on one tackles allowing them to get quick ptb, they were getting 3 men into each tackle.

Take two of Tomkins and Leuluai or Deacon out of their side and it would have been far closer.

Re: Player Ratings : Tue Oct 05, 2010 12:49 pm  

Billinge_Lump wrote:

I know you have a bit of a thing for him,

Don't be silly.

but Smith for me showed why we were correct in letting him go. He had an very good game against Wire, but was little better than average against Huddersfield and was worse on Saturday.

Well, I knew that Saints fans would be on his case if he didn't live up to the expectations he set for himself against Warrington. HOwever, I think you are being entirely unfair to him in your judgment. The only criticism that can be levelled at him was he had a poor first half kicking game, when Wigan were in his faces. Something, it can be noted, that was not true in the reverse. Unlike against Warrington, our forwards were not in Wigan's faces, not setting a platform for him or the backs as a whole to perform. Also, that was his first derby and his first Grand Final and he had been training for four weeks. He was inexperienced and also it is highly likely Potter will have told him exactly what he wanted him to do, in that marvellous gameplan he had going there in the first half.

His kicking game was poor and he offered nothing with ball in hand.

Well, he made the break for Dixon's try and passed in field for Meli's try and would have created a try for Wilkin had Wilkin been able to hold on to the ball. In the second half he also took on the line (I couldn't see whether he did in the first half) and he defended like mad. So I'm not sure what you mean by offering nothing with ball in hand.

We looked better when Lomax moved more centrally and Roby came on as we finally gave their defence something to think about..

Well of course we did. Lomax is a stand off and so Smith would then have had a halfback partner who could play as a halfback. But that is Potter's responsibility, not Smith's fault. He can only play with the team on the field and if the team on the field is not structured well or not playing well (and both were the case) then he can only try his best, which he did. Under the circumstances - all the circumstances - I think he did as well as any inexperienced halfback could.

Re: Player Ratings : Tue Oct 05, 2010 2:38 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

Don't be silly.

I didn't mean sexually, and your following defence of him proves it

Well, I knew that Saints fans would be on his case if he didn't live up to the expectations he set for himself against Warrington. HOwever, I think you are being entirely unfair to him in your judgment. The only criticism that can be levelled at him was he had a poor first half kicking game, when Wigan were in his faces. Something, it can be noted, that was not true in the reverse. Unlike against Warrington, our forwards were not in Wigan's faces, not setting a platform for him or the backs as a whole to perform. Also, that was his first derby and his first Grand Final and he had been training for four weeks. He was inexperienced and also it is highly likely Potter will have told him exactly what he wanted him to do, in that marvellous gameplan he had going there in the first half.

Warrington's defence is nowhere near as good as Wigan's, to blame it solely on our packs performance is to discredit the opposition. I accept that he is inexperienced, and I didn't expect a match winning performance from him, what I did expect was a decent long kicking game. That didn't happen, I'm pretty sure that Potter didn't tell him to put the Wigan defence under no pressure with any of his kicks. He didn't have the quality to turn the game round, which at scrum half he is pretty much expected to do.

He's a competant scrum half and that's it, I hope he does well at Salford, but I find it unlikely that he will be playing in a GF again. Salford won't get there and no one bigger will sign him.

Well, he made the break for Dixon's try

That was created after another throee or four passes and a cross field run by Wilkin.

and passed in field for Meli's try

Him and a number of others, iirc.

and would have created a try for Wilkin had Wilkin been able to hold on to the ball.

Problem with that is that Wilkin was the dummy runner and had he selected the correct ball, to Wellens behind Wilkin, we had a three man overlap. Wellens went ape at him, correctly. A better scrum half would have seen that pass, almost everyone else did.

In the second half he also took on the line (I couldn't see whether he did in the first half) and he defended like mad. So I'm not sure what you mean by offering nothing with ball in hand.

He took on the line with little effect, and not very often, hence me saying he offered little with ball in hand. He wasn't a threat to the Wigan defence with the ball in hand.

Well of course we did. Lomax is a stand off and so Smith would then have had a halfback partner who could play as a halfback. But that is Potter's responsibility, not Smith's fault. He can only play with the team on the field and if the team on the field is not structured well or not playing well (and both were the case) then he can only try his best, which he did. Under the circumstances - all the circumstances -

The team looked better, Smith did not.

I think he did as well as any inexperienced halfback could.

He did as well as any player with his experience and talent would have done, that's my point. I'd back that Eastmond had he been fit would have done a better job.

Re: Player Ratings : Tue Oct 05, 2010 4:31 pm  

I've only watched the game in detail (peace) again today. I hadn't realised just how bad that Matty Smith pass (decision) to Wilkin was. Any decent half back (or indeed a Sinfield / O'Loughlin type loose forward) would have had the vision to miss out Wilkin and give Saints a three on one overlap.

Re: Player Ratings : Tue Oct 05, 2010 4:45 pm  

Billinge_Lump wrote:

That was created after another throee or four passes and a cross field run by Wilkin.

But he still made the initial break. Most tries are scored as a result of multiple hands, same as the next one I cited. But someone has to start the ball rolling just as someone has to finish it off.

Problem with that is that Wilkin was the dummy runner and had he selected the correct ball, to Wellens behind Wilkin, we had a three man overlap. Wellens went ape at him, correctly.

Ironic that he did, really, given that he failed to notice a free man on his right and instead passed to his left to give away a certain try himself! I don't like it when Wello blasts inexperienced players just because he's frustrated that we are losing. But there is a sense of justice when he then goes and does something stupid himself.

The team looked better, Smith did not.

The team looked livelier; no better though. They still dropped balls, gave away penalties, defended poorly, etc. They just did it in a livelier manner.

I'll leave it there though as I'm not going to get dragged into another argument with you. I found the whole performance upsetting enough as it is without listening to one of the least experienced lads on the pitch getting pilloried for what was a dismal display by everyone (to varying degrees), including our dumb former coach.

Re: Player Ratings : Tue Oct 05, 2010 5:04 pm  

What's with the Matty Smith loving? Let if go for gods sake! He is not good enough.