Re: Well that was ugly : Sun Apr 03, 2016 10:10 am  

Magic Superbeetle wrote:

Well there's a couple of things to discuss here.

If Walsh was so injured that kicking 1 drop goal from 20m out was beyond his realm of ability at that time, why was he not subbed and one of the plethora of other halfbacks (Wilkin, Burns, Turner) brought in? Poor coaching.

If Peyroux has been playing with his thigh strapped the way he has, is it any wonder after his 3rd straight game he's going to be struggling? Why has their been no rotation at throughout the games? Poor coaching with a lack of faith in the youngsters (despite virtually every other club bringing kids in, the Wales international kid in Grace can't get a game still?)

If Greenwood failed his concussion test, why did KC seem unaware he couldn't bring him back on (as per him talking about bringing Wilkin back to the middle where he was "good")? Why could he not readjust and bring Savelio or Peyroux into the left second row for a stint? Poor coaching, with an ever growing preference to sub by the clock.

I agree, Peyroux didn't look match fit to play that game. Walsh should have been subbed with perhaps Fages at scrum half and Burns at Stand Off, Wilkin was making a few bad decisions so it was probably better leaving him as he was.
.
Bringing in youngsters is one for debate, is it better to play a youngster with a strong side where they can learn off the full time pro's or throw them into the deep end in a weakened team at risk, we know KC is limited on risks.

The Greenwood affair was amateur, at one point we had Roby, Walsh, Fages and Burns on the field at the same time and I,m not sure what Burns role was. Poor inexperienced coaching awareness from KC and his gang.

Re: Well that was ugly : Sun Apr 03, 2016 12:37 pm  

Judder Man wrote:

Peyroux, Walsh, Dawson and Thompson stayed on the field. Walsh and Peyroux was more or less the walking wounded and Hull attacked that channel in the second half using Pritchard. It was our decision making, discipline and defence that let us down around the 30 min mark.
On 37 mins Wilkin did a no pressure kick on the 3rd tackle, Hull ran it back 30 metres before I think it was Wilkin gave away a daft penalty to Hull let camp near our try line to score going into the break 16 -10 instead of 16-4 that was bad decision making and discipline.
.
I didn't expect Walsh to come out in the second half, most of the running play had to come from Fages but Dawson (calf) and Peyroux (hamstring) were struggling. Also in the second half we had for some reason Walmsley flying out of the defensive line on 3 occasions and missing the tackle and making a big hole in our defence each time, I'm not quite sure but I think he got pinged for a penalty on one of them.
.
Hull were also winning the energy battle after 60 mins, with 5 or 6 players not playing the Easter Monday game against a team with 4 injured players on the field.

They might be excuses but that was how I saw the game from my "sand pit" perspective, so I'll just leave it at that.

OK so injuries is your excuse for Hull. What's your excuse for the dire boring one up rugby before that?

Re: Well that was ugly : Sun Apr 03, 2016 3:28 pm  

I am actually interested in seeing Saints on Friday.

On here and the RedVee I have read loads bemoaning your style of play and saying that Saints play boring Rugby and that you not finish in the top 4.

But I stick by the adage never write off the Saints and was wondering if it is the case that you all have an unnecessary dose of negativity!

Re: Well that was ugly : Sun Apr 03, 2016 3:32 pm  

Fatbelly wrote:

I am actually interested in seeing Saints on Friday.

On here and the RedVee I have read loads bemoaning your style of play and saying that Saints play boring Rugby and that you not finish in the top 4.

But I stick by the adage never write off the Saints and was wondering if it is the case that you all have an unnecessary dose of negativity!

No doubt about it we are boring as hell. It's so bad it's unwatchable at times.

Wirh the league being such a poor standard we could still make top 4 but I honestly can't see it.

Re: Well that was ugly : Sun Apr 03, 2016 3:46 pm  

St pete wrote:

No doubt about it we are boring as hell. It's so bad it's unwatchable at times.

With the league being such a poor standard we could still make top 4 but I honestly can't see it.

What do you think the problem is?

Last season we were poop, well I say we were poop but we were actually fine until we got to within 20 metres of the other teams line but then all the players seemed to be looking round for Lee. Also our fitness levels didn't seem right and we did have a number of injuries. But no more than this season.

Re: Well that was ugly : Sun Apr 03, 2016 4:10 pm  

Fatbelly wrote:

What do you think the problem is?

Last season we were poop, well I say we were poop but we were actually fine until we got to within 20 metres of the other teams line but then all the players seemed to be looking round for Lee. Also our fitness levels didn't seem right and we did have a number of injuries. But no more than this season.

Our recruitment is poor. The are To many players just not good enough. We play one up rugby which must come from our coach and we can't create anything

Re: Well that was ugly : Sun Apr 03, 2016 4:22 pm  

St pete wrote:

Our recruitment is poor. The are To many players just not good enough. We play one up rugby which must come from our coach and we can't create anything

I'd phrase it differently to our recruitment is poor - the focus of our recruitment is wrong. We have sacrificed a game breaker for depth - and even though we've not had to throw kids in at the deep end (whether that's really a good thing or not is another debate...) not being able to change momentum in a game is really affecting us. Coupled with poor negative coaching ("Walsh is a much better player now he doesn't throw the ball about"), and certain senior players not being able to just focus on the role they're given (*cough*Wilkin*cough*) were left with mediocre backup outside backs left wth no space and little ball.

The fact it's taken KC until Easter to realise we need to play a halfback at standoff (and let's be fair, Fages has generally been a bright spot recently) says a lot out where we're at as a club

Re: Well that was ugly : Sun Apr 03, 2016 4:48 pm  

Magic Superbeetle wrote:

I'd phrase it differently to our recruitment is poor - the focus of our recruitment is wrong. We have sacrificed a game breaker for depth - and even though we've not had to throw kids in at the deep end (whether that's really a good thing or not is another debate...) not being able to change momentum in a game is really affecting us. Coupled with poor negative coaching ("Walsh is a much better player now he doesn't throw the ball about"), and certain senior players not being able to just focus on the role they're given (*cough*Wilkin*cough*) were left with mediocre backup outside backs left wth no space and little ball.

The fact it's taken KC until Easter to realise we need to play a halfback at standoff (and let's be fair, Fages has generally been a bright spot recently) says a lot out where we're at as a club

And we was super league champions just two seasons ago which shows how quickly we have fell.

To many mediocre players in the squad. I'd disagree with our recruitment, it's been poor. Owens has been a disaster so far, I know he's young but he's never the standard we've grown to expect. Peyroux has been decent. He's better than expected but he's totally average. Tasi has been a massive massive let down. He's to soft, he gets dominated in the tackle. Theo is hard one to call as he's not been picked but we've looked better when he's at 6.

Add this year's poor recruitment wirh the likes of mcdonnell, Dawson who are well below saints usual standard to the under performers like Walsh, Wilkin, Tommy, Burns, Greenwood etc then we not looking to hot.

I feel all Nathan Brown's good work has been ruined wirh our recruitment. He had us back competitive and in one and half seasons we look like we might not make top 6 never mind top 4.

Re: Well that was ugly : Sun Apr 03, 2016 5:59 pm  

Magic Superbeetle wrote:

I'd phrase it differently to our recruitment is poor - the focus of our recruitment is wrong. We have sacrificed a game breaker for depth - and even though we've not had to throw kids in at the deep end (whether that's really a good thing or not is another debate...) not being able to change momentum in a game is really affecting us. Coupled with poor negative coaching ("Walsh is a much better player now he doesn't throw the ball about"), and certain senior players not being able to just focus on the role they're given (*cough*Wilkin*cough*) were left with mediocre backup outside backs left wth no space and little ball.

The fact it's taken KC until Easter to realise we need to play a halfback at standoff (and let's be fair, Fages has generally been a bright spot recently) says a lot out where we're at as a club

I think thats a fairly accurate summary with the addition of availability of strike players through the present season.

Availability Sample:
Lomax Not played a game yet
Percival Only played one full game
Turner Lost in Project played 3 games in strike mode.
Swift Played 5 games out of 9
Burns Not selected played one long spell game.
Fages Only played 2 games
Roby Played 7 games
Wilkin Played 9 games (50% underperformed)
Walsh Played 9 games (50% underperformed)

Just looked at the stats we are the worse team in Superleague for the amount of strike players losing game time. We could have done a lot worse result wise, Leeds last year the best attacking side and Huddersfield the best defensive side are now the worse in that category, both can't buy a win at the moment with the exception of charitable donation from a saints side.
.
The loss of strike players is not to be taken lightly, the early front runners Salford lose 2 strikes and go on a losing streak, Castleford lose 2 strikes go on a losing streak, Widnes lose 1 strike go on a losing streak, Leeds lose 3 strikes and are in free fall. Saints lose strikes and can't get out of boring mode.

Re: Well that was ugly : Sun Apr 03, 2016 6:13 pm  

St pete wrote:

And we was super league champions just two seasons ago which shows how quickly we have fell.


.

Pete, I can't believe you have written that, you were the one that season having a go at Brown and saying we wouldn't get into the top 4, wouldn't win any silverware, wouldn't get to a grand final. I think you said you would do a streak down Mc Manus Drive if we did.
Well we won the League Leaders Shield an became SuperLeague Champions, and now you are using the above statement to strengthen an opinion.

Did you do the streak as promised by the way or was there a "get out of jail" statement hidden somewhere.