Re: Reality check : Mon Feb 23, 2015 4:22 pm  

Has I've already said, I don't believe there's this huge gulf in quality. The one thing that can't be denied is they've got the weather. Open your curtains over there in morning and chances are the sun is shining. What kid wouldn't want to get out there and play sports. You get bigger, stronger, faster, that heat is great for the muscles and joints too. You can throw that ball about, learn fancy tricks etc

You wake up here as a kid, for most of the year it's frigging freezing, wet, windy...thus harder on the muscles and joints. The ball gets dropped more...you're playing under 14's for Blackbrook on a cold, rainy morning, do you throw that ball about or do you hold the ball closer and try to maintain possession.

I'm rambling on but I think you'll get the jist. The weather plays a big part in the development of ball sports with kids. And we have crap weather.

Re: Reality check : Mon Feb 23, 2015 4:28 pm  

On the question of backs. I'm not particularly concerned right now. Percival is a young kid learning his trade and he'll improve a lot. Turner was moved to all manner of positions last season as cover and it didn't surprise me that he was caught out. Swift is only occupying the wing position until he gets an opportunity to move inside where I reckon he'll be far more effective. Lomax probably needed reminding about the rules of the game given the amount of time he spent out last season and Makinson is perfectly fine.

This Saints team is weighted primarily in favour of the forwards. And that's OK by me because tough go-forward packs win SL titles. If other teams want to spend big on strike centres or speedy wingers that's super. I'm sure they'll see some great tries on their way out of the competition.

That said - I do think we are a little short-handed in the back division. We certainly need to look at bringing through another winger from the juniors.

Re: Reality check : Mon Feb 23, 2015 4:36 pm  

Twentyman wrote:

Has I've already said, I don't believe there's this huge gulf in quality. The one thing that can't be denied is they've got the weather. Open your curtains over there in morning and chances are the sun is shining. What kid wouldn't want to get out there and play sports. You get bigger, stronger, faster, that heat is great for the muscles and joints too. You can throw that ball about, learn fancy tricks etc

You wake up here as a kid, for most of the year it's frigging freezing, wet, windy...thus harder on the muscles and joints. The ball gets dropped more...you're playing under 14's for Blackbrook on a cold, rainy morning, do you throw that ball about or do you hold the ball closer and try to maintain possession.

I'm rambling on but I think you'll get the jist. The weather plays a big part in the development of ball sports with kids. And we have crap weather.

If there's no "gulf" in quality - how do you explain our complete inability to win a test series in decades?

How do you explain losing recently with the best pack of forwards in living memory against practically a reserve side?

You can't just say it's the weather.

Re: Reality check : Mon Feb 23, 2015 5:02 pm  

Part of the problem with WCC is its one-off nature. It's hard to learn a great deal from one game if you are a player. I'd much prefer getting pasted in a best-of-three games competition because the players would then see what playing week-to-week at NRL level really entails.

Re: Reality check : Mon Feb 23, 2015 5:35 pm  

Blobbynator wrote:

Good lesson for our young team and a reality check for some aswell.

Souths were brilliant, I don't think we've played a team as strong as that in all my years of watching Saints. It's not that we were very bad, it's that Souths were that good.

The only disappointment is the nil scoreline against our name, but I think they'd have done that to anyone, they were that ruthless last night.

Whilst I agree, they were very very good, I thought we were pretty bad. If we had played to our full ability we would still have lost but by a less embarrassing margin.

Re: Reality check : Mon Feb 23, 2015 7:01 pm  

Mugwump wrote:

If there's no "gulf" in quality - how do you explain our complete inability to win a test series in decades?

How do you explain losing recently with the best pack of forwards in living memory against practically a reserve side?

You can't just say it's the weather.

True. I was on about club level though mate. That said, internationally, had it not have been for a dodgy decision at the death, we'd have knocked them out the Tri Nations. And to be fair, England represented themselves pretty well in that tournament as did Warrington and Wigan in the club matches.

Re: Reality check : Mon Feb 23, 2015 7:42 pm  

Twentyman wrote:

True. I was on about club level though mate. That said, internationally, had it not have been for a dodgy decision at the death, we'd have knocked them out the Tri Nations. And to be fair, England represented themselves pretty well in that tournament as did Warrington and Wigan in the club matches.

There might not be a great deal of difference between the top players. But they have a lot more. And that advantage is multiplied by intensity repeated week-after-week.

It's not something we are ever likely to match.

Truth is we've had two golden opportunities to beat Australia - once when they toured with practically a fifth strength outfit several years ago - and during the last tournament. If anything we fielded a stronger team in both games and yet still lost because they know how to play under the kind of pressure we just aren't capable of generating in SL.

It's somewhat disheartening knowing our competition is second-rate in comparison. But I guess it's that or embracing Onion.

Re: Reality check : Mon Feb 23, 2015 8:05 pm  

To me one of the most important differences is the cleverness of the play, associated with a higher standard of technical skill. South's first try, seeing the opportunity and executing the kick to capitalise on the opportunity exemplifies what I mean. As Judderman posted earlier, we and the rest of Superleague have a lot to learn from analysing their set ups, vision and execution.

Re: Reality check : Mon Feb 23, 2015 8:43 pm  

Simeon Stylites wrote:

To me one of the most important differences is the cleverness of the play, associated with a higher standard of technical skill. South's first try, seeing the opportunity and executing the kick to capitalise on the opportunity exemplifies what I mean. As Judderman posted earlier, we and the rest of Superleague have a lot to learn from analysing their set ups, vision and execution.

Agreed.

Ironic considering we sneer a little at NRL for being to robotic, all nrl teams can play.

Their speed of thought is far superior to SL in addition to the extra muscle and skill (kicking in particular)
that they clearly have.

Re: Reality check : Mon Feb 23, 2015 10:02 pm  

The old ARL was certainly robotic. And during its first years so was the NRL.

It's only over the last six or seven seasons I'd say they've really pushed on.