Sick of the guy now.

To go into the game with only one prop on the bench against a very physical hull side is nothing short of disgrace. We had no go forward in the second half which is no surprise. Also stop fuc!ing about with Scott Moore , play the lad at hooker or not at all. He should of been on the interchange tonight.

I expected a loss tonight but it's the manner in defeat which as pi!!ed me off!!!!

Your been unfair on him when talking about the Scott Moore playing scrum half. I've made it clear recently that i'm not a fan of Moore and at the minute, don't think hes good enough, however, someone has to play Scrum Half and when we have the injuries we do then he's the one thats got to do it. I don't think Moore has been playing well enough to play scrum half, against Barrow he was the worst player on the pitch, IMO. As i said, someone has to play there and with the injuries we do, and 3 hookers in the side, then one of them has to play out of position to cover the injuries.

He is going at the end of the season!!!
Stop bleating about the coach, he is going nowhere until the end of the season!
We are in CC Semi and 3rd in the league, not a bad position with all our injuries!
We were missing alot of size, TP, Fas out injured, no Wilkin and obviously Sia.
We played our 3 props who were fit, who else could he play?

Anybody else would of put Pryce scrum half and Wheeler stand off! Hopeless potter. The guy probably stood there like a gold fish at half time.

Can't wait till he leaves.

Jake Emmit was fit to play

Correct. At the start of the season a few of our own fans said that we would struggle to make the play-offs, and when we are in a very good position, after suffering a bad run with injuries, is pretty good.

And yet, with as many injuries a couple of weeks back, we won! Injuries aren't the reason for our loss tonight. That excuse didn't wash last season and it definitely doesn't wash this season.

The fact that Potter has been quoted as saying that he was happy with the team's effort tonight says a lot about Potter IMO. I'm well glad he's going. That our coach could say he is happy with losing a 20 point lead is not good.

The title of the thread is tactics, and I think we have lost two games due to some of these. Salford and now Hull..

His tactics against Leeds were pretty good.

You've got to play with the cards you are dealt with, Mick Potter had to put out that team because we have no alternative props or scrum half to chooose from.
Our biggest concern is the number of tries conceded from kicks this season it must be close on 80% at the moment, I reckon 4 out of the 5 games we've lost is not from opposition running plays but from kicks.
Big Tony and Maurie would be a big loss for any side, also Jammer had to play the full 80 mins. Potters tactics will be very limited when you have 6 or 7 players out.

I'm not saying injuries are the reason we lost, i wasn't there so i don't know the reason we lost the game, but to blame Potter after every single loss is getting boring. I'm not a fan of Potters, but theres not much he can do with key players out and to moan because hes had to play a player out of position is stupid, IMO.

What quote are you referring to?

If Potter has said hes pleased with the effort, there might have been a lot of effort, that doesn't mean hes pleased that we blew a 20 point lead. I'm not happy we blew a 20 point lead, but theres other factors and blaming Potter for everything doesn't wash.

getting back to the theme potters tactics.

....WHAT TACTICS????

Potter isn't blamed for every loss. The players' performances are generally blamed for a loss. To give away a 20 point lead, to be beaten 21-4 in the second half after winning the first 22-6 is very, very poor. We lost Roby to injury on the 53rd minute, which will not have helped us, but the reports coming through were of a steady loss, not a sudden crisis. Which goes to either players' performances or coaching tactics, or both. But elsewhere I've read that we had only one prop on the bench against a pack as big as Hull. Since we've now lost twice to Hull, my guess is that Potter doesn't get his tactics right against Hull. Reports also said we were forced into many repeat sets during the second half, which suggests we might have been kicked to death. But I don't know as I wasn't at the game either. What I do know, though, is that to say that he was happy with the effort put in by his players in losing such a commanding lead is very poor by Potter. And it was on the Sky report during the red button show that I heard that.

Had we been neck and neck with Hull throughout the match well, I wouldn't be saying it was poor of Potter to say what he did about the effort. But since we gave away such a big lead, I am.

And I am not blaming Potter for everything. I just question his choice of bench, if what I have read elsewhere is true, and I don't respect him for his comments about giving away such a huge lead now that we are moving towards the business end of the season.

I have missed any reference to Tony P being injured. Also, where was Fozzard and Emmitt? Were they on the bench?

why whats up with tony p now?..bloody hell this get's worse.

Just because we lost a 20 point lead, doesn't mean there was a lack of effort by the players. Things might have gone against us in the second half, and i suggest they did when we lost Roby. A few Hull fans have said that changed the game in there favour, things like that happen, it doesn't mean that there was a lack of effort by the players.

We blew a lead by 20 points, thats not good, agreed, however, that doesn't mean there was a lack of effort by the players or coaching staff for that matter, it could well mean that things went against us, and the momentum was with Hull and we couldn't handle them, after all we had a lot of young players on the pitch tonight.

I honestly don't think it was a lack of effort from your players at all, it was just one of those games that had a cupfinal/playoff feel, with both sides were throwing out risky passes and playing expansive rugby.

yes in effect Saints 'blew' a 20 point lead, but as I said in the other thread, the quality of Long's kicking game can't be discredited, he pinned Saints back and we also kicked 2 40/20's which contributed to Saints tiring more than Hull in the 2nd half.

I can understand why without seeing the game you'd be disappointed...but rugby league was the real winner this evening IMO. Miles better than the games full of on the floor 'wrestling' SL's been serving up recently.

No, of course not. We let in how many tries in 30 minutes? Our defence was impeccable, clearly. Don't be so daft. Of course there was lack of effort - at the very least, there was a lack of defensive effort. Either that or we once again totally failed to deal with kicks. In which case, Potter had better get off his butt and teach the lads how to deal with kicks. Isn't that the kind of thing coaches do? Teach stuff to players?

I've very little respect for Potter and his bland statements. Give me some honesty any day of the week.

It's funny how you jump from him being a great coach one week and rubbish the next. Every team loses, no matter who the coach. You weren't saying you can't wait to get rid after Murrayfeild were you?

I've not said anything about Potter this season at all.* So I don't know what you're talking about.

I will say, though, that I'm glad he is going.

*Edited to add: since the first Hull match. I've been on the fence about him since then but since he's declared he is going, I am happy with that declaration.

It wasn't aimed at you directly, it just seems week to week similar people are begging for him to leave, yet when you win by 50+ points, he doesn't really get praised. Your in the Semi's of the challenge cup and 3rd in the League, hardly seems that bad a coach.

You didn't go to the game, you're listening/reading reports, so you don't know exactly what happened, and neither do i, therefore you can't say there was a lack of effort. From what various people have said, Hull pinned us in our half late in the game, and had a lot of sets in our half, causing us to do a lot of defending, this will lead to missed tackles, it doesn't mean we lacked effort or that we couldn't be bothered.

Definition of Effort: The use of physical or mental energy to do something;

Its not difficult to understand that it might not have been down to effort, maybe Hull just got the momentum and we struggled to cope and were much more tired. After all, they had an extra weekend rest on us, after we had a tough game against Barrow last weekend. Just because Hull came from 20 points down to beat us, doesn't mean it was down to us lacking effort. We might have put as much effort in as possible, but when a team gets all the momentum and gets on top, then teams struggle to cope with that, and its obvious by the reports that Hull had all the momentum in the final 20 minutes, hence they came back to snatch the game. It does not mean that we couldn't be bothered and just gave up, it means that Hull got the bounce of the ball and got the momentum behind them, and we are often the side that has that momentum and teams can't cope, in this instance it sounds as if it was the other way around, it happens. Deal with it, or maybe not, just blame Potter.

I'm not Potters biggest fan, in-fact, i'm not a fan of his at all, and i wasn't at the game and i haven't seen the game so i'm not going to kick off over his tactics or anything else, just yet anyway. What Potter has said could very well be true, but i wasn't there so i don't know and neither was you, so you don't know either.

Are you saying that going from 26-6 up 8 minutes into the second half (when Hull scored the first of their multiple tries) and then losing by one point, not having scored another try, is a great defensive effort? Well, I don't. I think that is a poor defensive effort. And what I'm saying is that I would have respected Potter more for saying how it is rather than giving some bland statement about effort. Clearly we were poor defensively in the second half. That is crystal clear since we leaked tries. Not being at the game doesn't make a jot of difference to what is actually a fact. We leaked tries in the second half. Therefore, our defence was not up to it.

Secondly, is Fozzard injured? Is Emmitt injured? Why did Graham play 80 minutes? Was Potter experimenting for this match or did he just decide that we can beat a massive Hull side with one prop on the bench, assuming that report was true?

It obviously wasn't good defence, because we leaked trys, but there might have been reasons for that, and because you wasn't at the game, you obviously don't know the reasons, therefore it does make a difference. A few people have said that Hull had all the possession and had plenty of sets in our half, therefore with that much possession and pressure, your defence is always going to tire, that doesn't mean that the lads didn't put any effort in, but if you want to find any reasons to have a go at Potter then carry on. It is a fact that we leaked trys, correct, however, it is not fact that the lads didn't put the effort in. It might have been poor defence, or it might have simply been that Hull had the momentum and due to all the pressure put on us in the final 20 minutes, we tired quicker than they did, hence that then led to us leaking a trys. It is a very stupid comment to say 'it doesn't make jot' if you wasn't there, as you don't know the circumstances as to why we leaked trys, but it doesn't mean it was down to a lack of effort from the lads. Sometimes you can put in the effort.

Fozzard was on the bench, so he wasn't injured, don't know about Emmitt.

'Saint Billy' is much more on the money with his assumptions than you are.

RL is a game where if you keep scoring or forcing drop outs the opposition simply doesn't get the ball. That's what happened to Saints in the 2nd half, they barely touched the ball and when they did they were starting from the in-goal area or behind the 20metre line. To have to keep defending so many sets and then drive the ball up from so deep is tiring, and Saints simply tired more quickly than Hull.