Re: Saints (m) : Wed Jul 06, 2022 6:29 pm  

MadDogg wrote:

We also may still be missing Kaide Ellis and Cade Cust. A little bizarre how the Saints injuries have been construed - with the number of injuries throughout the sport atm you would have to say you're in a pretty good place if you only have 3 players unavailable.

It's 3 players more than they usually have out

Re: Saints (m) : Wed Jul 06, 2022 6:45 pm  

Egg Chasing wrote:

It's 3 players more than they usually have out

Them having a trot like this season, where they have 3 or 4 out pretty often gets blown up by Saints fans and the media because of that exact reason. They’ve done it tougher this season than any of the last 4 years and by a considerable margin but they’ve still been far more fortunate than many clubs. One major injury and some niggles here and there is child’s play really. We’ve also been fortunate this season (touch Wood) with some niggly injuries(3-6 week jobs) and just KPP missing a chunk of more than a couple of months, so we can’t complain either.

Re: Saints (m) : Wed Jul 06, 2022 7:16 pm  

The consensus over in the fictitious world of redvee is that we were still jammy to win the QF and we only scored from their mistakes. They 'battered us' for 'half the second half' deffo deserved to win then. I think some of those phalangeled challenged neighbours over the lump should watch the game back and see how their try's came about. How boring would rugby be if nobody ever made a mistake and every defence was on point. All the matches would end 0-0. Not being able to admit when the opposition was better than you has become the norm for 'them' since they self adopted the greatest club side ever in super League. A statement that is wrong, not only in context but in real life.

Re: Saints (m) : Wed Jul 06, 2022 8:25 pm  

Pie_Eyter wrote:

The consensus over in the fictitious world of redvee is that we were still jammy to win the QF and we only scored from their mistakes. They 'battered us' for 'half the second half' deffo deserved to win then. I think some of those phalangeled challenged neighbours over the lump should watch the game back and see how their try's came about. How boring would rugby be if nobody ever made a mistake and every defence was on point. All the matches would end 0-0. Not being able to admit when the opposition was better than you has become the norm for 'them' since they self adopted the greatest club side ever in super League. A statement that is wrong, not only in context but in real life.

Let's hope we're as poor on Saturday.

Re: Saints (m) : Thu Jul 07, 2022 9:05 am  

Pie_Eyter wrote:

The consensus over in the fictitious world of redvee is that we were still jammy to win the QF and we only scored from their mistakes. They 'battered us' for 'half the second half' deffo deserved to win then. I think some of those phalangeled challenged neighbours over the lump should watch the game back and see how their try's came about. How boring would rugby be if nobody ever made a mistake and every defence was on point. All the matches would end 0-0. Not being able to admit when the opposition was better than you has become the norm for 'them' since they self adopted the greatest club side ever in super League. A statement that is wrong, not only in context but in real life.

Not sure that's what has been said. What was said is we struggled to get on top in the game, to which people replied we were massively on top for large chunks of the 2nd half and should have gone on to win it. Josh Simm had a shocker and Davies was bizarrely picked to play in the halves (with Lomax playing shortly after a bad injury and showing it) so thankfully we won't have those issues this weekend.

Personally, I think that is right. We were atrocious first half, well on top for much of the second and then threw it away with an intercept. I'm sure you'lll have a different view of it which is fair enough.

I'm pretty confident we'll have enough on Saturday.

Re: Saints (m) : Thu Jul 07, 2022 9:31 am  

FearTheVee wrote:

Not sure that's what has been said. What was said is we struggled to get on top in the game, to which people replied we were massively on top for large chunks of the 2nd half and should have gone on to win it. Josh Simm had a shocker and Davies was bizarrely picked to play in the halves (with Lomax playing shortly after a bad injury and showing it) so thankfully we won't have those issues this weekend.

Personally, I think that is right. We were atrocious first half, well on top for much of the second and then threw it away with an intercept. I'm sure you'lll have a different view of it which is fair enough.

I'm pretty confident we'll have enough on Saturday.

That's not an unfair view. But if you're going to say 'we were atrocious' in the first half as something that you will probably rectify, we can just as easily point to the poor defensive efforts for your second and third tries as un-Wigan like. I think you were genuinely on top for about 20 minutes of the game, maybe a little more. The worrying thing is that you managed to score three times in that spell.

I'll wait and see what the team sheets look like, but as things stand I can see a very tight game that you'll probably just about edge.

Re: Saints (m) : Thu Jul 07, 2022 9:35 am  

FearTheVee wrote:

Not sure that's what has been said. What was said is we struggled to get on top in the game, to which people replied we were massively on top for large chunks of the 2nd half and should have gone on to win it. Josh Simm had a shocker and Davies was bizarrely picked to play in the halves (with Lomax playing shortly after a bad injury and showing it) so thankfully we won't have those issues this weekend.

Personally, I think that is right. We were atrocious first half, well on top for much of the second and then threw it away with an intercept. I'm sure you'lll have a different view of it which is fair enough.

I'm pretty confident we'll have enough on Saturday.

Or alternatively we were excellent in the first half and outclassed you, had a dip for 15 minutes in the second half when we let you back into it through our own errors and penalties but quite rightly won it in the end as we were much the better team over the 80 minutes

The trouble with Saints fans is their team is never beaten by a better side. Other teams only win because Saints were poor. Similarly Saints never win (or have a good spell second half) because the other team is poor but because of how well they're playing. It's wearisome. You were beaten by a better side on the day and you will be again on Saturday. Of course, should that happen, it'll be because of Saints' injuries and not because our team of plodders and average Joes plays better than yours.

Re: Saints (m) : Thu Jul 07, 2022 9:39 am  

Cherry_&_White wrote:

That's not an unfair view. But if you're going to say 'we were atrocious' in the first half as something that you will probably rectify, we can just as easily point to the poor defensive efforts for your second and third tries as un-Wigan like. I think you were genuinely on top for about 20 minutes of the game, maybe a little more. The worrying thing is that you managed to score three times in that spell.

I'll wait and see what the team sheets look like, but as things stand I can see a very tight game that you'll probably just about edge.

Not sure I agree with that. As good as you have looked in attack, your defence hasn't been all that impressive. You've conceded 323 points all season not much better than Castleford and Hull and more than Saints, Catalans and Huddersfield. Whilst there was an element of cue on the rack against Wakefield, they still scored 22 points with a depleted side.

Sides are scoring at least 2-3 tries against you per game bar the odd game.

Re: Saints (m) : Thu Jul 07, 2022 10:04 am  

Stu M wrote:

Not sure I agree with that. As good as you have looked in attack, your defence hasn't been all that impressive. You've conceded 323 points all season not much better than Castleford and Hull and more than Saints, Catalans and Huddersfield. Whilst there was an element of cue on the rack against Wakefield, they still scored 22 points with a depleted side.

Sides are scoring at least 2-3 tries against you per game bar the odd game.

Our defence has been weaker this season than it was under Wane & even Lam's first season, no doubt.

I'm thinking more about how the tries were conceded, rather than the number. I'd like to think Roby wouldn't be able to force himself through two defenders quite as easily as he found it in the CC Semi, and that we won't make as many errors defending the high ball as we did either.

I suppose in a roundabout way my point is that it's having it both ways to think to think:

a) the first forty minutes where Wigan were the better team was totally atypical due to a combination of injuries, Wigan playing at our maximum and Saints playing as bad a half as they have in years, and at the same time, b) The twenty minutes in the second half where Saints scored off near enough every chance they had off the back off the back of some poor Wigan errors simply reflects normal service being resumed.

Not saying that this is how you see things! But I definitely got a sense of this view from a few Saints fans at the time.

Re: Saints (m) : Thu Jul 07, 2022 10:35 am  

Cherry_&_White wrote:

The worrying thing is that you managed to score three times in that spell.

If we had a referee that used his video referee then it would have been two.