: Sun Jun 07, 2009 9:36 am  

R.B.A wrote:

To be fair you have played against two thirds of the top three.

TBF Saints played at 30% and Leeds are a shadow of themselves. Both there for the beating if we had a clue!

: Sun Jun 07, 2009 4:07 pm  

Agar is still an assistant coach in my opinion. He lacks the tactical awareness that many super league coaches have. This must be something that stems from Australia as people like morgan and nathan brown are very clever coaches especially in comparison to two british coaches, 1 being an out an out assistant at this level and 1 being a failed super league coach. That point aside I have also been informed that agar highlighted sean long as saints weak link in defense for this weekends game.... great way to fill people with confidence with his signing capabilities!

: Sun Jun 07, 2009 4:12 pm  

RatedRSuperstar wrote:

Agar is still an assistant coach in my opinion. He lacks the tactical awareness that many super league coaches have. This must be something that stems from Australia as people like morgan and nathan brown are very clever coaches especially in comparison to two british coaches, 1 being an out an out assistant at this level and 1 being a failed super league coach. That point aside I have also been informed that agar highlighted sean long as saints weak link in defense for this weekends game.... great way to fill people with confidence with his signing capabilities!

On friday night Saints had a youngster playing on the wing Johny lomax i think his name was, playing only a handful of games for them very inexperienced yet at no stage on Friday night did we try to get at this kid and test him out in fact i know it was never even mentioned by our coaches to the players

Fooking clueless, maybe they was too busy concentrating on the interchanges oh hang on maybe not

: Sun Jun 07, 2009 4:20 pm  

Big Dave T wrote:

TBF Saints played at 30% and Leeds are a shadow of themselves. Both there for the beating if we had a clue!

30% you donought

If we played at 30% then Hull are under 1% FFS. If we played you 10 times you'd be lucky to win 1 (ala 2005)

: Sun Jun 07, 2009 5:10 pm  

Rommel wrote:

30% you donought

If we played at 30% then Hull are under 1% FFS. If we played you 10 times you'd be lucky to win 1 (ala 2005)

When we want the opinion of a nazi we will ask for it

Or even a loyal supporter that follows his team home and away to every ground

: Sun Jun 07, 2009 5:33 pm  

The Brother wrote:

On friday night Saints had a youngster playing on the wing Johny lomax i think his name was, playing only a handful of games for them very inexperienced yet at no stage on Friday night did we try to get at this kid and test him out in fact i know it was never even mentioned by our coaches to the players

Fooking clueless, maybe they was too busy concentrating on the interchanges oh hang on maybe not

Top coaches (particularly ozzie ones) look at the opposition in minute detail looking for any weaknesses to expolit. I'm convinced agar doesn't do any of it as there is never any evidnce on game days that he has

: Sun Jun 07, 2009 5:34 pm  

Rommel wrote:

30% you donought

If we played at 30% then Hull are under 1% FFS. If we played you 10 times you'd be lucky to win 1 (ala 2005)

If you had a brain I think you'd realise he meant saints were playing at around 30% of their potential. It was a complement you fukwit

: Sun Jun 07, 2009 5:35 pm  

Jake the Peg wrote:

Top coaches (particularly ozzie ones) look at the opposition in minute detail looking for any weaknesses to expolit. I'm convinced agar doesn't do any of it as there is never any evidnce on game days that he has

he doesn't as i said in aearlier thread he didn't instruct the team or players on friday night to target young saints winger johny Lomax clueless

: Sun Jun 07, 2009 5:45 pm  

The Brother wrote:

he doesn't as i said in aearlier thread he didn't instruct the team or players on friday night to target young saints winger johny Lomax clueless

Lomax is a fullback normally and as such comfortable dealing with kicks, so why would you think targeting him would have brought any results? Dont assume cos we didnt kick to him more often that the coaching staff dont assess opposition weakness in detail.

: Sun Jun 07, 2009 5:46 pm  

worldwidefaithful wrote:

Lomax is a fullback normally and as such comfortable dealing with kicks, so why would you think targeting him would have brought any results? Dont assume cos we didnt kick to him more often that the coaching staff dont assess opposition weakness in detail.

Because he is the least experienced player playing on a bigger stage than normal,simple really