Re: Forum title & banner - Move with the times, no? : Tue Nov 16, 2010 9:31 am  

SaintsFan wrote:

*sigh*

I can't be bothered.

All I'm saying is that if I had to choose between 2006 and 2010 in terms of excitement levels, give me 2006 any day of the week. 2010 was just a lower standard and that's why we had so many close games. Quite often we were total bollox to watch in 2010. If you and McClennan and whoever else thinks that was exciting well good for you. I'm happy not to be in your club!

I certainly can't remember a season 1993-2010 where we didn't at some point complain about our ball control & defence or discipline & we got games wrong tactically even in our trophy laden seasons. 2006 was by miles our most perfect season technically and it was a true joy to watch us dominate the competition but for blood pumping excitement levels? Debatable, t is far and away my favourite season but it was without too many thrilling hug a stranger moments.

I will try not to get into the debate about excitement levels between 2006 v 2010 - except to say your preference for hard fought matches can't really have been satiated in 2006 as we pee'd over everyone save for around half a dozen matches.

I agree in 2010 we had some awful moments, we had some tragic performances and our defence was disappointing, but in comparison we made less mistakes and only conceded 3 more penalties than in 2006 and while it is not always a guaranteed excitement factor we did score more tries than anyone since 2005, we pulled off a couple of backs to the wall wins and some of sheer class of which we can be proud of. My point being that despite all the problems that you have pointed too in our play (of which I don't deny any) It was hardly an appalling bore fest, we had to be doing some things right and it was a quantum leap in excitment from 2009.

I think for a top 2 side our staggering lack of pace (without Kyle, Leon) combined with the rule changes really has hindered our capacity to play our (old trademark) throw it about exciting rugby as we don't have players to them back up forcing us down the route of function over flash.

The new coach combined with the signing of some pace in Shenton and hopefully returns for fully fit Kyle & Leon, maturer experienced versions of Lomax & Foster and many less injuries, the return to prominance of our true rivals points to a promising and exciting 2011...

Re: Forum title & banner - Move with the times, no? : Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:13 pm  

Chris Saint wrote:

I will try not to get into the debate about excitement levels between 2006 v 2010 - except to say your preference for hard fought matches can't really have been satiated in 2006 as we pee'd over everyone save for around half a dozen matches.

That was said in response to the same comment made as a reason for their excitement over watching us last season, that is to say I want hard fought matches, but because other teams rose to our standard and not because our standards fell (which they did, last season especially). I loved us trouncing other teams. It had seemed like an eternity since we had done it so the novelty didn't wear off for me. But my preference as you put it is for Saints to perform well overall (as opposed to occasionally) because I enjoy watching Saints most when they are performing well. Whether that is in beating a team by a couple of points (because the other team is competing at a high standard along with us) or by a good mullering, I really don't care. I love watching Saints when they perform as I believe they can.

Re: Forum title & banner - Move with the times, no? : Tue Nov 16, 2010 2:03 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

*sigh*

I can't be bothered.

All I'm saying is that if I had to choose between 2006 and 2010 in terms of excitement levels, give me 2006 any day of the week. 2010 was just a lower standard and that's why we had so many close games. Quite often we were total bollox to watch in 2010. If you and McClennan and whoever else thinks that was exciting well good for you. I'm happy not to be in your club!

In my book, an exciting season and exciting rugby are two different things. Saints played a pretty boring brand of rugby for most of the year but the season itself was quite exciting due to a number of close games in the really important battles.

Wigan, Warrington and Leeds away were great games without witnessing a great brand of rugby.

In the past we have witnessed many great performances, with a great brand of rugby but they haven't been great games.

2006 was great only in the terms of winning the lot. Few games were great and our brand of rugby was functional rather than inspirational.

The brand of rugby has changed little since. We have lacked pace for years and clearly rely on forward power to win the day but this last year saw us involved in some great games. That's why they enjoyed 2010 more.

I see the point in what they are saying but in terms of being an entertaining side, I would say we are far from being so.

Re: Forum title & banner - Move with the times, no? : Tue Nov 16, 2010 9:20 pm  

We would be more entertaining with a bit of pace out wide, but we've lacked that since Albert left and the blame for that can be laid squarely at the door of Daniel Anderson.

That's why I'm hopeful that a few of these kids will break through and become regulars, whilst Foster, Lomax and Wheeler lack pace to go the length of the field, they do have acceleration and good footwork and can make breaks.

Re: Forum title & banner - Move with the times, no? : Wed Nov 17, 2010 6:46 pm  

D.D. wrote:

In my book, an exciting season and exciting rugby are two different things. Saints played a pretty boring brand of rugby for most of the year but the season itself was quite exciting due to a number of close games in the really important battles.

Wigan, Warrington and Leeds away were great games without witnessing a great brand of rugby.

In the past we have witnessed many great performances, with a great brand of rugby but they haven't been great games.

2006 was great only in the terms of winning the lot. Few games were great and our brand of rugby was functional rather than inspirational.

The brand of rugby has changed little since. We have lacked pace for years and clearly rely on forward power to win the day but this last year saw us involved in some great games. That's why they enjoyed 2010 more.

I see the point in what they are saying but in terms of being an entertaining side, I would say we are far from being so.

I wonder how much of the change in play has been down to an overall shift in the game over here to forward domination? Having a good big pack will get you into the top four usually each year and all teams recognise that now particularly in Australia where great props are worth a mint.

Re: Forum title & banner - Move with the times, no? : Wed Nov 17, 2010 8:36 pm  

D.D. wrote:

In my book, an exciting season and exciting rugby are two different things.

Ah. Well we would differ on that one. My 2010 was a high anxiety season in which Saints and the coach frustrated me a lot. I lost count of the number of times my hands went to my head because we made an error at a crucial time or we looked out on our feet just when the opposition seemed to be revving up or when Potter made some dumb decision. That isn't exciting to me; it's painful and frustrating, regardless of the final score. Exciting to me is when we are playing well and the tactics are good, giving me the confidence that we COULD win even if the opposition is also looking good. They are nerve-racking matches but I'm totally engrossed rather than despairing. There were odd occasions when we played exciting rugby, but they were few and far between.

To me, an exciting season is watching exciting rugby. Last year was simply a frustrating season that did my blood pressure no good at all.

Re: Forum title & banner - Move with the times, no? : Thu Nov 18, 2010 2:00 pm  

McClennan wrote:

I wonder how much of the change in play has been down to an overall shift in the game over here to forward domination? Having a good big pack will get you into the top four usually each year and all teams recognise that now particularly in Australia where great props are worth a mint.

Indeed.

Daniel Anderson did great things for us in terms of professionalism and winning trophies, but he is largely responsible for the unexciting brand of Rugby League we see across the country today.

People saw what could be achieved by a big rolling pack in 2006, despite a hideously slow backline, and it has left a rather unwanted legacy.

Add that to the fact the whole game int his country has a distinct lack of pace these days, take into account that coaches are only interested in results and not entertainment, and the modern game is what you have got.

Until we see the influx of pace into our backline again, that's the more likely route to winning games and the game is not going to become any more open.

Re: Forum title & banner - Move with the times, no? : Thu Nov 18, 2010 2:06 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

Ah. Well we would differ on that one. My 2010 was a high anxiety season in which Saints and the coach frustrated me a lot. I lost count of the number of times my hands went to my head because we made an error at a crucial time or we looked out on our feet just when the opposition seemed to be revving up or when Potter made some dumb decision. That isn't exciting to me; it's painful and frustrating, regardless of the final score. Exciting to me is when we are playing well and the tactics are good, giving me the confidence that we COULD win even if the opposition is also looking good. They are nerve-racking matches but I'm totally engrossed rather than despairing. There were odd occasions when we played exciting rugby, but they were few and far between.

To me, an exciting season is watching exciting rugby. Last year was simply a frustrating season that did my blood pressure no good at all.

If you want exciting rugby, then you have to go back to 2005 since we saw any, mainly due to the facts discussed in my post above.

One point you touch on is unforced handling errors. As demonstrated perfectly in the Four Nations Final, it's across the board these days and I just can't understand it. It's totally ruining the flow of the game.

I expect someone is going to come on now banging about defences being better and the ball being forced out in bone-crushing tackles. I'm not talking about that, it's the amount of time players are dropping simple passes before the tackler has even come in. At least when the Saints of old used to drop the thing it was because they were trying to do something special and taking risks.

Conservative rugby is there for all to see these days as it gets driven up for six tackles before the kick. However, if the end result is dropping the bloody thing before you've completed your set of drives (as it often is) then you might as well drop the thing by attempting to play some rugby and fashion try scoring chances.