Re: Wellens, Hohaia, Lomax and Rush : Sun Sep 30, 2012 12:48 am  

Wellens - still a great player but time is running out and he probably needs to start being phased out next season in favour of any of our dozens of other potential #1s. He can still do a job though and Lord knows where our tries would come from otherwise.

Hohaia - Great player. Never a half in a million lifetimes. A complete waste of his (and Lomax's, Wheeler's, Ashe's & Gaskell's) talents playing him there. He needs to play #1 or #9. Pity we're overloaded with #1s and #9s already though. Even taking into account the fact that he's played totally out of position in a very limited scheme, he's still been a crushing disappointment however. And we thought he could replace Leon FFS... A waste of salary cap and an incalculably precious overseas spot as things stand. Given that we're stuck with him for 3 more years though I'm hopeful that the new coach can utilise him correctly and we'll see a different player and, who knows, some occasional attacking danger from him.

Lomax - Great talent and potential. Never a #7. Could still be devastatingly effective there with a quality #6 alongside him. Alongside Hohaia though he's regressed frighteningly this season and seems to be getting worse and worse with every passing (sic) game. Desperately in need of a new coach and tactical system to get his career going again - Widnes beckons for him in a few years at the current rate. I really, really like the thought of him at #4 next year...

Rush - *sigh*.... 2012 has been a sad, sad waste under him I'm afraid. We were never going to win a trophy playing one-up grinding all year so what was the point in trying it? We've hardly seen any of our young players and those we have seen have largely de-evolved from what we saw in 2011. He may have "steadied the ship" (i.e. pandered to whatever the players' egos and whatever their gripes with Royce were) but I can't help but think that sticking with Royce until the end of the season (even if it meant 6th or 7th place in the table and earlier knockouts in the cup and playoffs) and seeing a few more youngsters get a chance and actually develop would have left us in better shape than we are in right now.

Re: Wellens, Hohaia, Lomax and Rush : Sun Sep 30, 2012 6:00 am  

Northampton_Saint wrote:

Rush - *sigh*.... 2012 has been a sad, sad waste under him I'm afraid. We were never going to win a trophy playing one-up grinding all year so what was the point in trying it? We've hardly seen any of our young players and those we have seen have largely de-evolved from what we saw in 2011. He may have "steadied the ship" (i.e. pandered to whatever the players' egos and whatever their gripes with Royce were) but I can't help but think that sticking with Royce until the end of the season (even if it meant 6th or 7th place in the table and earlier knockouts in the cup and playoffs) and seeing a few more youngsters get a chance and actually develop would have left us in better shape than we are in right now.

For I think the first time ever, I agree with everything you say here.

Re: Wellens, Hohaia, Lomax and Rush : Sun Sep 30, 2012 6:40 am  

SaintsFan wrote:

For I think the first time ever, I agree with everything you say here.

For Christ sake, he's never coached before, he did a job he didn't want to do and did the best he could.

Players might not have progressed but he he came in to a complete mess and gave the players confidence.

I take my hat off to him for stepping into the hit seat when we was at rock bottom with a team put together by Royce Simmons that contained no centres, no halves and one out and out prop and he put pride in the jersey.

Well done Mike Rush and KC!

Re: Wellens, Hohaia, Lomax and Rush : Sun Sep 30, 2012 9:41 am  

BackrowSaint wrote:

I thought Flannery had a pretty decent game, along with Flanagan to be honest.

Flannery isn't an issue at all though, that was his last game in the V. Thank you for your years of service.

when we signed Flannery it was stated he was an SOO player.It actually meant So often ordinary.Waste of a quota spot for too long.

Re: Wellens, Hohaia, Lomax and Rush : Sun Sep 30, 2012 10:01 am  

Mugwump wrote:

I'm as dissatisfied as the next guy with Wellens lack of pace and our ability to launch attacks further up the field after kick returns - but seriously: where do the "drop Wellens" brigade think those 20 odd tries as well as countless breaks and half-breaks are going to come from? Hohaia? Makinson? Lomax?

We could bring in an exciting full back, whose mistakes cost us games, just like how Wigan's season came to a shuddering halt on Friday night, thanks to an inept full back, or how Saints exposed Tomkins weakesses to beat the Goons in the last game of the season. Wellens may be boringly safe, but the same speccies would soon be screaming if we had a full back who was prone to gaffs. Just ask Meli.

Re: Wellens, Hohaia, Lomax and Rush : Sun Sep 30, 2012 10:04 am  

Ninja saint wrote:

For Christ sake, he's never coached before, he did a job he didn't want to do and did the best he could.

Players might not have progressed but he he came in to a complete mess and gave the players confidence.

I take my hat off to him for stepping into the hit seat when we was at rock bottom with a team put together by Royce Simmons that contained no centres, no halves and one out and out prop and he put pride in the jersey.

Well done Mike Rush and KC!

Agree, the problem with some fans on here, they are judging Rush as a coach when he isn't one. He gets unfair criticism at times, KC has a lot of input into this temporary coaching set up yet there is not one single complaint towards him.
McManus made the decision to sack Simmons and he wouldn,t have done that without justification, if he was still here I reckon we would be outside the top 8 and still playing with 16 men.

Re: Wellens, Hohaia, Lomax and Rush : Sun Sep 30, 2012 11:38 am  

Can't slate Flannery. Had a good game for me. We lost it - once again - down to the horrible lack of nous we have in the halves. Even when we dominated them we didn't have the know how to open them up and punish them as often as we could have, and once their forwards got on top it was game over. If our halves cannot do their job when we have forward momentum, then what chance do we have without any.

Really fed up of seeing us lump kicks straight down the throat of the opposition fullback as well.

Re: Wellens, Hohaia, Lomax and Rush : Sun Sep 30, 2012 12:00 pm  

Judder Man wrote:

Agree, the problem with some fans on here, they are judging Rush as a coach when he isn't one.

He was our coach and so he should be judged as such, same as any other person who is our coach. I don't see why he should get any favours just because he is a saints man, chosen by McManus in his moment of utter idiocy. KC not getting attention is nothing new. How many people gave attention to any of our previous assistant coaches? None. It is always the head coach who is held responsible - by the club as well as the fans - and so given that Rush agreed to taking on the job (and he wouldn't have had to), Rush should be held accountable in exactly the same way as any other coach who agreed to take on the head coaching position at Saints.

And McManus would have sacked Simmons if he wanted to regardless of justification. Saints isn't a democracy. McManus can probably do pretty much what he wants, when he wants. Including being a total pratt.

Re: Wellens, Hohaia, Lomax and Rush : Sun Sep 30, 2012 12:20 pm  

Saint from Prestwich wrote:

when we signed Flannery it was stated he was an SOO player.It actually meant So often ordinary.Waste of a quota spot for too long.

Except he was never on quota? Signed pre 2008 before the rules came in.

Re: Wellens, Hohaia, Lomax and Rush : Sun Sep 30, 2012 12:23 pm  

Judder Man wrote:

Agree, the problem with some fans on here, they are judging Rush as a coach when he isn't one.

So WHEN is a coach a coach? I mean, don't ALL coaches emerge from the lower ranks without any SL or NRL experience?

What was Ellery Hanley when he took Saints to a Grand Final victory?