Re: team for friday v widnes : Sat Apr 21, 2012 2:59 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

They aren't senior players.

You honestly think Meli has gone some pull in the dressing room?

Re: team for friday v widnes : Sat Apr 21, 2012 3:09 pm  

St pete wrote:

You honestly think Meli has gone some pull in the dressing room?

Well, it's probably the only place he'd have a chance.

Mind you, he is pretty hot without his shirt on.

Re: team for friday v widnes : Sat Apr 21, 2012 3:11 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

Well, it's probably the only place he'd have a chance.

Mind you, he is pretty hot without his shirt on.

I think you'll get you wish as I doubt he will be here next year.

Re: team for friday v widnes : Sat Apr 21, 2012 3:31 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

Rush said when Royce was first sacked that they were taking the advice of the senior players both in coaching and in training. For example, he said they (he and KC) were inexperienced and so may 'do something wrong' in training, so they are collaborating with the senior players on this kind of thing. So the evidence - and it is evidence I am giving, not proof - suggests that there is a collective at Saints at present. Given how close play and team selection are connected, and given that - as I said earlier - turkeys wouldn't vote for Christmas - I very much doubt the senior players will be sacrificing themselves. Given the need of Rush and KC t maintain positivity among the senior players, I can't see Rush or KC upsetting said senior players by dropping them or moving them elsewhere in the line up if they don't want to play there.

Admittedly there is a basis for your suggestion that there is a collective coaching setup in place (although I think you are exaggerating somewhat. I remember Rush saying he was consulting the senior players in order to draw on their experience. I certainly don't remember him saying he was doing it because he and KC 'might do something wrong').

You have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Meli has demanded to be played on the wing, however. Despite this you have stated it as if it were fact.

Re: team for friday v widnes : Sat Apr 21, 2012 3:47 pm  

Dux wrote:

You have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Meli has demanded to be played on the wing, however. Despite this you have stated it as if it were fact.

I didn't say Meli had demanded to play on the wing!

I've said on here before that Mike Appleton tweeted after the Leeds game how 'good it was to see Meli enjoying his rugby on the wing again'. Given that comment, given the comments by Rush (and they did include the reference to training - it was in an interview shortly after the handover) and given that Meli rather than Makinson (who was fit at the time of the Leeds game) ended up on that wing and has stayed there, I have simply put it all together. As I said, it is evidence, not proof.

PS: as additional evidence to the player power idea, take Josh Perry's whinge in League Weekly the week before last. In spite of agreeing that the extra training Royce was putting him through was helping, he moaned about not being selected and how he thought about giving up the game because he wasn't being selected every week. So now he gets selected every week, even though he is still our poorest prop by a mile.

Re: team for friday v widnes : Sat Apr 21, 2012 3:49 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

I didn't say Meli had demanded to play on the wing!

I've said on here before that Mike Appleton tweeted after the Leeds game how 'good it was to see Meli enjoying his rugby on the wing again'. Given that comment, given the comments by Rush (and they did include the reference to training - it was in an interview shortly after the handover) and given that Meli rather than Makinson (who was fit at the time of the Leeds game) ended up on that wing and has stayed there, I have simply put it all together. As I said, it is evidence, not proof.

PS: as additional evidence to the player power idea, take Josh Perry's whinge in League Weekly the week before last. In spite of agreeing that the extra training Royce was putting him through was helping, he moaned about not being selected and how he thought about giving up the game because he wasn't being selected every week. So now he gets selected every week, even though he is still our poorest prop by a mile.

2+2=5

Re: team for friday v widnes : Sat Apr 21, 2012 3:54 pm  

Top Saint wrote:

2+2=5

Could be. Or it could be 2+2=4.

Like I said, it's evidence and not proof.

Re: team for friday v widnes : Sat Apr 21, 2012 4:09 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

I didn't say Meli had demanded to play on the wing!

Let's have a look at the exchange below.

St Pete wrote:

If [Foster is] as good as you make out then why ain't he playing?

Saintsfan wrote:

Because Meli wanted to play on the wing, and we have a coaching collective in place at present.

St Pete wrote:

Your entitled to beleive what you want but rush and KC are in charge and no way Meli could choose where he's playing.

Saintsfan wrote:

Now that's naive.

So you didn't type the word 'demanded', but if you were suggesting anything other than that Meli's selection on the wing was his own decision then you were going about it in an awfully strange way.

Re: team for friday v widnes : Sat Apr 21, 2012 4:15 pm  

Dux wrote:

Let's have a look at the exchange below.

So you didn't type the word 'demanded', but if you were suggesting anything other than that Meli's selection on the wing was his own decision then you were going about it in an awfully strange way.

Let's look at the alternative, the one which reflects what I actually said, by way of an imaginary (but perfectly possible) conversation:

Coaches: 'Where do you feel happiest playing, Franny?'

Franny: 'On the wing'

Coaches: 'Ok then. Wing it is.'

Re: team for friday v widnes : Sat Apr 21, 2012 4:22 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

Could be. Or it could be 2+2=4.

Like I said, it's evidence and not proof.

Or it could be, Just like Mike Rush has said, That the players took a long hard look at themselves and realised they were not giving 100%. Also could it not be that with the departure of the coach, the two interim coaches decided to get back to doing things which had worked in the past. Maybe.