Re: Near perfect and we still lose : Sat Aug 06, 2011 11:34 pm  

With all due respect Ron and Electricglidingwigoon, Jog on!

Re: Near perfect and we still lose : Sat Aug 06, 2011 11:59 pm  

Ron wrote:Hey we all know Wigan don't care about the good of the game, we know your history, don't worry about that!

TheElectricGlidingWarrior wrote:

Lowering the standard of English RL under the banner of "improvement"? Well, your doublespeak is improving if nothing else.

Stop derailing our thread you two and go and have your arguement somewhere else and let us carry on analysing why we are so good but still lost.

Re: Near perfect and we still lose : Sun Aug 07, 2011 4:34 am  

The Chair Maker wrote:

quite frankley a better coached team would have demolished Wigan

Re: Near perfect and we still lose : Sun Aug 07, 2011 6:55 am  

Saints struggled to break down the Wigan defense yet Gaskill played for 5 minutes!!

Scott Moore was the difference for me - his defensive for the Tomkins try was terrible add to that 2 knock ons when Saints were in good position plus the penalty.

Re: Near perfect and we still lose : Sun Aug 07, 2011 7:02 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

Scott Moore was the difference for me - his defensive for the Tomkins try was terrible add to that 2 knock ons when Saints were in good position plus the penalty.

I agree with that.

Re: Near perfect and we still lose : Sun Aug 07, 2011 8:10 am  

Saddened! wrote:

We're not as good as Warrington or Wigan. 3rd is fine for us, we don't deserve to win anything.

Sad One, Whenever you post you always talk sense .

Re: Near perfect and we still lose : Sun Aug 07, 2011 8:17 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

Saints struggled to break down the Wigan defense yet Gaskill played for 5 minutes!!

Scott Moore was the difference for me - his defensive for the Tomkins try was terrible add to that 2 knock ons when Saints were in good position plus the penalty.

I've banged on about this all year. Why have a player on the bench abd only use him fir the last ten mins?

Surely that is a disadvantage to us, yesterday most of our subs was rotated between lms, Graham and TP. Clough only come on for 15 mins and Gaskell the last 10. We are effectively playing most games with 15/16 men which must be a disavantsge.

I just find it strange and never seen this before.

Re: Near perfect and we still lose : Sun Aug 07, 2011 8:20 am  

saint at wire wrote:

Stop derailing our thread you two and go and have your arguement somewhere else and let us carry on analysing why we are so good but still lost.

You will soon be as sick of Ron as we are....

Re: Near perfect and we still lose : Sun Aug 07, 2011 8:24 am  

St pete wrote:

I've banged on about this all year. Why have a player on the bench abd only use him fir the last ten mins?

Not least because we are almost guaranteed to lose a back to injury this season. We have needed that back on the bench so often. Had it been Eastmond, as would have been the case if he hadn't been injured, I'm sure we would have seen him on earlier.

Hopefully Pryce isn't injured again but rather Simmons was resting him for next week. The guy was playing in only his fourth game back after a year out and it showed.

Re: Near perfect and we still lose : Sun Aug 07, 2011 8:39 am  

[quote="SaintsFan"]Not least because we are almost guaranteed to lose a back to injury this season. We have needed that back on the bench so often. Had it been Eastmond, as would have been the case if he hadn't been injured, I'm sure we would have seen him on earlier.

Hopefully Pryce isn't injured again but rather Simmons was resting him for next week. The guy was playing in only his fourth game back after a year out and it showed.[/quot

So we put a back on the bench just in case a back happens to get injured? Then if one don't get injured we give them a ten min run at the end?

If that's the case then I'm shocked and it's pretty crazy thing to do as we only play 70 mins with 15/16 men.


This is the days of pro rugby where players are now top class athletes abd multi skilled. The our players all over the field that can cover different positions and do a more than capable job.

We have players like sia, flannery, roby, Moore and wilkin that can all cover the backs if needs be. I know you'll say it's less disruption for a back to slot in for another back but eastmond (our back sub) is a halfback but would be expected to cover anywhere in the backs, so what's the difference of moving someone else there ?

IMO we can't take a spot up on the bench just in case a back gets hurt. That slot needs to be used.