Re: Royston Simmons - Any good? : Tue Aug 23, 2011 2:32 pm  

Offside Monkey wrote:

Good grief, woman.

I knew that would get a response, especially from Billinge Lump, who has a Potter antenae. I just couldn't resist!

Re: Royston Simmons - Any good? : Tue Aug 23, 2011 2:34 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

I knew that would get a response, especially from Billinge Lump, who has a Potter antenae. I just couldn't resist!

Carry on like that and you'll get popped in a pigeon hole next to Saddened and his worse backs than Wakefield comments.

Re: Royston Simmons - Any good? : Tue Aug 23, 2011 3:12 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

I knew that would get a response, especially from Billinge Lump, who has a Potter antenae. I just couldn't resist!

It's a drivel antennae, not a Potter one.

Potter did have these kinds of injuries to contend with, he also had to put in inexperienced youngsters. Foster, Dixon, Ashurst, Lomax, Wheeler, all got a lot of game time last year due to injuries, game time that put them in good stead for this year.

Potter had a few more experienced players to rely on, but Simmons has had the benefit of less green youth to cover for injuries, so it's swings and roundabouts on that score for me.

We look more expansive this year, but we've been less effective attacking, scoring far less points. That is quite probably down to the forced use of very inexperienced half backs for most of the year. The big thing for me is that we look weaker defensively. Good coaches come in and take defence to the next level. Anderson did it for us, Smith has done it at Wire and Maguire did it at Wigan. Potter didn't take us up a notch, but we appear to have gone down a notch under Simmons.

I do think we'd have finished third if Potter had been in charge this year, but we wouldn't have been any better. Potter was better defensively, Simmons is better attacking, but all in all they are probably on par as coaches, neither being top class.

Re: Royston Simmons - Any good? : Tue Aug 23, 2011 5:42 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

'et al' means 'and all' just in case you didn't realise, Pete. Therefore, I wasn't talking about JUST Cunningham. But most of our tries were scored from within our own 10m and a good percentage of those were 'barge over' style tries.

Potter did have to contend with injuries but nothing remotely like Simmons has had to contend with. And all Simmons has had for back up has been young, inexperienced players.

Those young inexperienced players was even more inexperienced when potter had to throw them in the deep end.

Re: Royston Simmons - Any good? : Tue Aug 23, 2011 5:50 pm  

Benidorm John wrote:

Nice guy, The look on his face after each game makes him a prime candidate for chief mourner at a state funeral, He now explains working the backside off Roby by saying he gives him extra time off during the week, this must bode well with his team mates who have to train full time, (how much time does Jammer get off?)

Maybe the rest of them should have more time off, then we'll be full of energy come game day.

Re: Royston Simmons - Any good? : Tue Aug 23, 2011 6:29 pm  

Billinge_Lump wrote:

but we appear to have gone down a notch under Simmons.

Now that is drivvel.

Re: Royston Simmons - Any good? : Tue Aug 23, 2011 6:40 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

Now that is drivvel.

What's your evidence to say we've improved?

Our league position is worse, our points for is far worse and our defence is similar. So where are the improvements?

Re: Royston Simmons - Any good? : Tue Aug 23, 2011 6:49 pm  

Blobbynator wrote:

What's your evidence to say we've improved?

If you read the exchange of posts, I was saying that us going down a notch or two which Lump claimed we have done was talking drivvel. Our league position is exactly the same as it was this time last year - third - and in terms of achievements we have managed exactly the same as we did last year - got knocked out of the Challenge Cup semi with no hope of getting top of the league. The only dip is in the for and against column and what the fook do you expect when we have to play umpteen inexperienced players in a multitude of positions on an ever changing basis?

Get real for God's sake. Some of the stuff spouted on here of late has been utterly ridiculous and I'm not the one spouting it for a change.

Re: Royston Simmons - Any good? : Tue Aug 23, 2011 6:56 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

If you read the exchange of posts, I was saying that us going down a notch or two which Lump claimed we have done was talking drivvel. Our league position is exactly the same as it was this time last year - third - and in terms of achievements we have managed exactly the same as we did last year - got knocked out of the Challenge Cup semi with no hope of getting top of the league.

We finished 2nd though and that's because we always remained competitive with Warrington and even Wigan for large periods of the season until they pulled away at the end. Our record against the big teams has been terrible (unlike last season) and you can dress it up as much as you like, we've been weaker this year, fact. Hence there hasn't been an overall improvement to the side.

SaintsFan wrote:

The only dip is in the for and against column and what the fook do you expect when we have to play umpteen inexperienced players in a multitude of positions on an ever changing basis?

The dip is our for column and our position in the league. You use the inexperience factor this season like Potter didn't have any injuries to deal with, but Eastmond barely played from June onwards last year and Pryce didn't play from July onwards. We had Moore and Wilkin in the halves in the Semi Final last year! Both coaches had to deal with inconsistency in selection.

Re: Royston Simmons - Any good? : Tue Aug 23, 2011 7:03 pm  

Blobbynator wrote:

We finished 2nd though and that's because we always remained competitive with Warrington and even Wigan for large periods of the season until they pulled away at the end.

Yes, we finished second. Thanks to Keiron Cunningham in the final match of the season. You might not have noticed but we no longer have Keiron Cunningham playing for us. There's a message in there somewhere.

You use the inexperience factor this season like Potter didn't have any injuries to deal with, but Eastmond barely played from June onwards last year and Pryce didn't play from July onwards. We had Moore and Wilkin in the halves in the Semi Final last year! Both coaches had to deal with inconsistency in selection.

This is getting boring. You might not have noticed this also but Pryce has only just started playing - and I use the term 'playing' loosely here - and Eastmond was sheeite when he did get on to the pitch due to his attitude so he really may as well not have bothered. As at the present time, only Roby and Foster have missed no games this season due to injury but really Roby should have. Every place bar hooker and left wing have been affected by injury this year and not just to first choice players but second and third too, when it came to the halves and fullback positions. Sure, our injuries were bad last season but nothing like as bad as they have been this. You have a very short term memory if you think we were anything like as badly off last year as this year. That we have made third is astounding and testament to the efforts of the coaches and those senior players who have actually worked hard (and not all of them have) to support the many and varied new players we have seen this season.