It's always a bad day when you lose to Wigan, but in the round 4 weeks ago I would never have guessed we could win 2 or even 1 out of those 3 games.

Wigan had a lot of their pack out, but from the Beeb commentary on Merseyside the pack from Wigan seam to have bossed ours. Yes we lost Lomax early doors. But even so Wigan sounded like they played well and defended well.

I know once those who have seen the game come on there will be emotion, blame thrown around at ref's, coaches, players, etc etc. But lets not lose focus, a good result for Wigan and a poor one for Saints but onwards and upwards.

As i posted after u beat wire as soon as u played a team half decent u would get walloped and so it came to pass.I hate being right all the time!!!!!!!

Enjoy the day in the sun.

I think if someone had offered you 2 victories from your 3 games against leeds, Wire and then us , you would have snatched his/her hand off , especially given the way you were playing going into those games , it will be interesting to see if you can get back up for the next few games!

To right.

It's hard to tell at the moment what our true form is. You can't really read form from 2 games (leeds and Wire), it could have been an initial improvement, but neither can you tell form from 1 game today. I was surprised you pack bossed ours but then again it's not the first time a Saints team has been overturned by the youth of Wigan and I'm sure it will not be the last.

Congrats

The difference is Wigan took us seriously. The other teams came out with red hair or thought home field advantage made victory inevitable.

But the signs were there in the second half against Warrington, when Warrington decided to take the game to us. The problem here is within the team itself.

losing Lomax just completely killed our organisation.

Everything was then left to Lance, who Wigan just kept an eye on.

Wigans first 20 minute burst in the first half was down to them having the wind behind their backs. Getting that lead gave them the confidence to dig deep and come up with the result.
Ultimately Wigan played that match as if it was their cup final. We just played it like it was another game.

Warrington are a classy outfit. It's inconceivable that they wouldn't cause us problems on their own pitch. But we were still making breaks even when they looked like hitting their straps. The truth is they thought the game was in the bag before the opening whistle. Just like Leeds.

Wigan, on the other hand, took us seriously from the first minute and matched our effort in equal measure. Which meant the game came down to who had the classier players.

For all Gardner, Shenton, Meli etc. huff and puff they are no match for players who can genuinely play rugby.

Losing Lomax didn't help. But thinking he would provide the kind or organisation and creativity to match Wigan's halves and Tomkins is pure dreamland.

Nobody's claimed that - but, as CM said, losing Lomax made it easy for wi*an to snuff out our one remaining ball-playing/organising threat

That's true. But Lomax should never be considered an attacking pivot in the first place. That's not his game. Attempting to make him so will only end in disaster.

I don't particularly rate any of those three - but were there opposite numbers any better?

Richards was only half-fit (and isn't exactly an electric winger fully fit)
Charnely's a decent player and (through a dearth of quality British three-quarters) isn't far from the England team. But he aint world class.
Goulding's just a bog-standard SL centre
Carmont has had flashes of class, but is past it

What makes them effective is the gameplay deployed by wi*an. Their dummy runners, pace of attack, angles and chiming into the line are better than ours (which have admittedly improved since Royce went, but still lack variety and guile)

He would have straightened up their line and made them have to second guess what was going to happen. Just look how Leeds and Wire struggled to handle him.

Lomax going off forced Wilkin to move into the halves. This killed our threat there and also took away one of our fringe runners.

He aint Andy Greegory, but brings his own skillset to the game. Much as you don't rate him, he does possess some ability to send a top pass out (as well as having a eye for a gap and off-the-mark pace to set up an attack)

Remove this option from our game and it lessens our threat. Remove this from our game and replace it with Wilkin's slow hands, lack of pace and organisational skills that similarly need improvement and wi*an knew they just needed to target Lance to snuff out any attacking fluidity.

Losing lomax was devestating but not the only reason we lost

The halves don't physically force Wigan's backs to run those angles. They have to possess the aptitude in the first place to work as part of a cohesive attacking unit marshalled by the playmakers. The big difference is they do it at pace. Raw pace and pace between the ears. We are sadly lacking in both departments.

I DO rate Lomax. I just don't rate him as a/the playmaker. There's a difference.

I notice you say he "would" have straightened up their line instead of he "did" straighten up their line when he was on. Which he didn't.

Saints presented no greater attacking threat prior to Lomax's injury.

Running those angles is coached into them. Practising allows players to do this at pace.

I'll give you Tomkins being a cut above (now he is world class with ball in hand) and can read the game superbly, but the others are just a result of long-term coaching in that particular skill, along with the team playing that particular style

You can't even begin to compare Wigan's performances in the backs (with more than one coach) with ours over the last five years.

They score tries from inside their own half. Our backs can't go forty metres without being dragged down.

Look at Gardner being burned off the field vs a part-time loose-forward in the Hull game.

In terms of attacking threat this is one of the worst sets of backs I've seen in years.

Take the blinkers off. This is nealy as laughable as the Saints fans that have been trying to tell us all week that Tomkins was the only one that can make a break and that Saints have all these line breakers compared to Wigan. Well out of our 'average' backs we have 5 players in the top 25 players in SL for clean breaks. Tomkins is way out in front, Goulding, who has been fantastic all season and far from bog standard is 11th, Richards and Charnley joint 14th and Finch joint 17th. 1-7 from Wigan outplayed their opposite numbers today and I certainly wouldnt swap any of Saints 1-7 for any of Wigans. Oh by the way Saints have none in the top 25 which says a lot about your backs.

I'm pretty sure if you read the whole thread, you'll reallise that's what is being said.

In relation to the original thread title, if I'd been offered two wins from the next three games after the Bulls game, I'd have snatched your hand off. Add to this the style of rugby played in those two games, in relation to the dross that we've watched for 3+ seasons prior, and I'd certainly take it.

Wigan were better than us today. It happens. The way to respond is to go to their place and turn them over.

It was what struck me as i looked at the team lineups... If we could hold the forwards, we were better in the backs... That said, i thought you had the stronger looking pack and bench, on paper.

Good job we don't play on paper!!