I apologise for not agreeing with you.

We were dreadful in terms of cohesion and execution of last plays last year. The thing is we have such good individual personnel that a lot of the time we can get away with this and scrape a win when we don't deserve one. As a result we seem to have been happy not to make a serious attempt to fix problems that are always going to bite us on the backside in big games against quality sides, like the cup semi and the grand final.




Admittedly there is some dummy spitting going on, but the fact is the side are getting fundamental elements of the game badly wrong, and there are no signs that anything is getting done to change this. After an entire pre-season's work it seems we have exactly the same problems. I'm not advocating a rash change in coaching staff, but I wish Potter would address some of the basic issues that have arisen game after game since he took over.

At the moment the whole is considerable less than the sum of its parts, and the coach has to take some responsibility for that.

I agree entirely, but I'm minded to wait longer than game 1 of the new season with new half backs and injuries before making a decision as to whether Potter is addressing this.

There are obviously those who feel Potter should leave immediately (hence the thread title) and those who believe it's still too early to judge. Neither side will change the opinion of the other so I guess it's a "wait and see".

It's still my opinion that the board will judge Potter on how many of our young players break through to be regulars by the end of his two years in charge and whether we can manage that transition whilst remaining a top 3 team challenging for trophies. That's how I intend to judge him too.

I appreciate everyone's opinion is different and that they are entitled to it, but it irritates me when Potter is blamed for everything from injuries to half time oranges being late and the team is being booed off the pitch one game after they were cheered out at Old Trafford.

They got to Old Trafford because of (a) Longy's defence and (b) Kyle Eastmond's attack. They lost 5 out of their last 8 games last season, so don't make out Old Trafford to be something it wasn't. Without Longy and his two try-saving tackles into touch (one of which he only just about got away with) and Kyle and his attack, Wigan would have been at Old Trafford, not us.

The team were booed one game after being cheered out at Old Trafford, those are the facts however you wish to package them.

Anyway, truce called with the Potter out mob. I'll keep my propaganda to myself.

They were booed because of their performance and effort or lack thereof by most players. The boos had nothing whatsoever to do with Old Trafford. They had everything to do with the same old, same old that we had been watching since halfway through last season. You don't accept that, fine, that suits your agenda. However, that doesn't make it any less the truth.

I was just stating a fact. Like I said, truce with the Potter out people.

Genuine question though - what is it that you think my agenda is? You've mentioned it a couple of times now.

We had a pre/off season?! It just looked to me like the organisation closed down for a snow break, and concentrated on designing some awesome shirts (hmm).

How many of our "first choice" players actually appeared in a preseason game? 3 or 4 was it? How is that ever going to bode well for early season?! And i refuse to accept that fact that a bit of snow destroyed the pre-season plans, as that would be a cop-out.

Never liked Potter, partly because i associate his joining the club, with Perelini leaving. (Pretty sure he brought his own conditioning team with him?).

Since Apollo left, our teams have looked sluggish, part-interested and most of all, lack the motivation of a trophy-challenging team.

I was saying "Potter out!" as a joke for the first half of last season. Then toward the end of it, it wasn't a joke anymore.

And now.... well, what's improved exactly?

We only made two tackles in the match against Wigan?

Had Longy not made those two tackles of which I wrote, Wigan would have won as they were try-saving tackles and he was the only one in place to make such tackles. As you well know. So stop being silly.

Had every other player on the pitch not made the tackles they did Wigan would have scored more points than they did. Long made two important tackles, every other player made important tackles, just not as last ditch as the two Long did. He was in place because the game plan said he should be there to defend, he followed the defensive structure that was in place.

I don't see your point, are you saying Long ignored Potter by covering for the winger to win us that match?

He had to - Potter was using Gardner at prop like on Saturday.



Sorry SaintsFan, couldn't resist. Truce stands

See? I told you that you knew anyway.

That's as bizarre a post as I've ever seen on here.

Not really.

I said that Longy had made two try-saving tackles in that match. You called them last ditch. Either way, we both know that without those two tackles of Longy's it wouldn't have been us going to Old Trafford. You just don't want to admit it. It suits you better to say that those of us complaining about Potter's influence on this team are wrong because we got to Old Trafford. As if that was a huge achievement.

That's your agenda (oh, and Fear the Vee's too, since he asked me about that recently).

Opinions and agendas are two different things.

Without the tackles made by everyone else over the rest of the 80 minures we wouldn't have been going to Old Trafford. I know that if Long hadn't made those two last ditch tackles (do you deny that they were last ditch?) we wouldn't have gone, however you don't appear to accept that they were part of a whole performance and seemingly wish to ignore the contribution made by everyone else in the team. I thought you were doing a coaching course? Of all people then, I'd have expected you to take into account the fact that a result is based on a [iteam[/i performance rather than two single incidents in an entire 90 minute match.

In what way does it suit me to say you are wrong? I think your opinion is wrong (and that's all it is, an opinion, as with every other post on this subject), I don't think Potter is the Anti Christ he seems to have become on here and I don't think Anderson was the Messiah that did nothing wrong. Anderson left us with a squad on a downward slide, that lost four really top class players, and was lacking pace. Potter has had to deal with that without being able to spend a great deal of money.

I don't know why you are referring to agendas here, I've not got an agenda. I don't know anyone from the club, I'm not after protecting anybody, I have an opinion. As Fear The Vee says, and opinon and an agenda are two different things.

You seem to think everyone has an agenda, what's yours?

Billing Lump:

Here is the post of Fear the Vee's that I was initially replying to in reference to Longy's try-saving/last ditch tackles:

[iThe team were booed one game after being cheered out at Old Trafford, those are the facts however you wish to package them.[/i

Fear the Vee's agenda is that he does not wish to criticise Potter. His opinion will be that Potter needs more time or is a good coach misunderstood or whatever, and his agenda is to attempt to prove that point. He attempts to fulfil his agenda by packaging things in a certain way. It is something we all do when we have an agenda, as opposed to an opinion, and all of us have agendas. My own is to show that Potter has had a negative influence on this team and I do so by responding with the evidence as I perceive it: that Saturday night was a continuation of the previous season's awful play by Saints. That we got to the Grand Final was because Longy wore out his boots against Wigan. It would not have mattered how many tackles were made by other team members that night, had Longy - on his own - not legged it to the wing to save those two tackles, Wigan would have been at Old Trafford.

A few other posters on these boards have suggested that we 'made it to second'. We didn't. We [islipped[/i to second, which reflects how we were slipping generally - five losses in our final eight matches is a bad sign. And we still had Longy and Gilmour then. We now have six losses in our final eight matches. That is how the majority of Saints fans on here and elsewhere (irl and online) are perceiving our performance against Hull. Not our loss; our performance: a continuation of the same stuff we saw in the second half of last season. It is. We look the same. And we still can't post more than 20 points. It doesn't seem to matter who our opposition is. We don't seem to know what to do as we approach the tryline anymore. I'm just thankful we weren't nilled on Saturday.

I don't see Anderson as the messiah. But there is no doubting he brought out the very best in our players. The prime example of that is Gardner. He worked as a team with Gidley and scored the most tries in 2008. Very quickly into 2009 he had not only slipped in form but crashed. There was no sign of any improvement on Saturday night.

I don't see Potter as the anti-christ. I simply believe, as a result of the changes in our performance during the last 9 months, that Potter is spoiling the Saints and I don't buy the 'transition' argument either. Passing from standstill, not using dummy runners, one play at ball distribution, clueless towards the tryline, dropping the ball, inaccurate passing ... these are not issues of transition. They are issues of coaching. We have far better players on that pitch than their standard of play over the last 9 months suggests. I know this because like you and everyone on here I've witnessed them playing much better than they do now.

If Potter had taken us to the treble last year and turned us into a great flair team we would all be euphoric and saying what a wonderful coach Potter is. He appears to have done the reverse and so I have no problems with saying what a poor coach he is. I will give credit where it's due and criticism where it's due. Now [ithat[/i is an opinion rather than an agenda.

PS: I passed the course.

If you wish to interpret not thinking a coach should be sacked one game into a new season as an agenda to never criticise him, that is up to you. But please keep your imaginary projected agendas for me to yourself. Those who know me and speak to me in person about rugby will know full well that isn't an agenda I have and will also know full well that I have, and will continue to, criticise Potter when I see fit to do so.

You appear unable to accept other opinions and when asked to back up your own, you tend not to. For example, I doubt I'll receive a response on the Eastmond thread about his performances as a starting 7 next year because it suits you to ignore any evidence which supports an opinion you prefer to dismiss out of hand as "rubbish". Similarly when I asked you to explain why you thought Gardner's injury was related to Potter using him as a prop.

Perhaps if you weren't so dismissive of other opinions (not agendas) and backed your own up a little more, you wouldn't be involved in so many misunderstandings on here.

But FearTheVee [ihas[/i criticised Potter in some matters, all he has said is that he will make the judgement on whether Potter has been a failure at the end of his two year contract rather than half way through. What if Potter's brief is to ensure that we bring the team in under budget and he brings through enough youth players to ensure we meet quota requirements in a year or two and trophies are an extra?



Are you the reincarnation of Richard Nixon? That's an incredibly paranoid view on life. People can't have an opinion without having an agenda?



Other tackles didn't matter? So every other tackle made didn't prevent Wigan scoring, only Longs two tackles? That's a good example of ignoring fact to push forward your agenda, and utter rot to boot.



Then they would be wrong, we have slipped. I think all sensible posters know that we are not the team we were in 2006. The difference is that some people saw this coming and don't just blame the lot on Potter. A change of coach will still leave us with a squad that is inferior to that of the one we had in 2006 and earlier.



Performances have been poor, I've seen no disagreement on that. There have been reasons for that though. The loss of players in the pack giving us less go forward and dominance, Long's loss of form and injuries, Pryce's loss of form. We do have problems in an attacking sense, again I don't see any disagreement from anyone on that score.



Until the Grand Final.



Anderson did get a lot out of Gardner, perhaps more than he should have according to some.

However we didn't get the space to attack down that side that we had previously. Long no longer possessed the threat he used to with ball in hand, Pryce was off form, the opposite side of the team usually had a second rower playing out of position who rarely gave his winger the ball. Therefore defences weren't as stretched as they used to be against us. It isn't as simplistic as saying it's all down to Potter and his tactics.



That's a perfectly reasonable opinion to have, but you have to accept that others may not share your opinion without them having an agenda or being obtuse. I do buy the transition argument, inexperienced players don't play with the same fluidity that experienced players do, passes are slightly off, runs aren't timed right, this gives players less time to do what they do and makes defending easier. IMO, a team should always be in transition and if you reach a situation like we have you've left it too long and got stale.



That would have been an unrealistic expectation given our squad and was never going to happen. Unfortunately it seems that a number of Saints fans [idid [/iexpect that.



That last paragraph shows more of an agenda than anything either myself or FTV have posted. He didn't turn us into world beaters therefore is a poor coach? Again, it's an opinion you are entitled to, just as everyone is entitled to agree or disagree.



Congratulations.

There you go then. That's his agenda. As is yours. There's no harm in having an agenda and it isn't a sign of paranoia to know that people have agendas. It's an intelligent observation on human functioning. The back yard wall of my parents' house recently became very dangerous. They had to get in a builder to rebuild it as a matter of urgency (the wall faces directly on to the street). Because my parents are too trusting and now also retired, my agenda is to protect my parents from exploitation. It gets on their nerves sometimes but they know I do it because I care. An agenda can be a very positive thing and it comes about when someone is convinced of something and so will interpret matters from a certain standpoint and/or promote the same through what they say. An agenda isn't always a cynical political ploy; that's just the way the term is often used.


A good example here of the more cynical application of agenda! Misquoting. I didn't say they didn't matter; I said they [iwould not have[/i mattered because it was Longy's who saved the day. What I said implied something different to what you inferred.


Again, a cynical application of your agenda here. I did not mention 2006. I referred to last season. The slippage began mid way through last season. Earlier in the season we looked as crisp and healthy as we had done under Anderson, which would make sense as his influence was still uppermost. Only Gardner appeared to suffer quite quickly.


People are blaming Potter for a deterioration that began mid way through last season not for any deterioration there may have been prior to that.


I don't buy those reasons. I was willing to do so last season except of course when our injuries returned, nothing changed. However, since you have decided not to judge Potter until he has left (which is kind of useful, I suppose) then no matter what happens between now and that time, it will not be Potter's responsibility in your view.

I would love my viewpoint to be turned on its head because my own agenda is my love for Saints. Coaches come and go but my hometown team remains. If Potter has a revelation and we begin to see concrete evidence that Saints are no longer dropping the ball, passing from a standstill, clueless on attack, playing about two obvious moves, etc, etc, then I will be the first person to say that I might have been wrong. But right now, such a change does not look hopeful to me because Saints looked the same on Saturday as they did during the second half of last season.


I didn't say that. I said that if we had been amazing everyone would have credited Potter with that. Therefore, given that we are consistently producing dire rugby league and have been for months, we must logically credit Potter with that also. In other words, you can't credit a coach with success but not with failure. The coach is either responsible or they are not. But my guess would be that you, Fear the Vee and others would be very quick to credit Potter had we been playing well (regardless of the trophies).

So my "agenda" is for Potter to keep his job at Saints regardless, whilst your agenda is that you love the club?

Get over yourself, seriously.

Your insults don't do you any favours ...

I'm sure you love the club as well. But you fancy Potter also.

I think you need to reevaluate what agenda means, unless you think patience is an agenda.



And if the other tackles had not been made than Long's would have counted for just as much. You implied that Long's tackles were more important than any other tackle in the game, when in reality they were not. A fact that is seemingly hard to accept for you.



2006 was the last time we had a squad that won the main competition we entered. Are you saying that the subsequent squads were better? The slippage started well before mid 2009. A fine example of your own agenda here. You imply that the players completely ignored Potter and his coaching until mid 2009. Why did they stop following Andersons game plan at that point?



But the deterioration [idid[/i start prior to that, to ignore that fact is a prime example of ignoring facts to suit your own agenda, an example that is more glaringly obvious than any post you have thrown that accusation at.



Did Long return fully fit? Did Fa'asavalau? No, they did not. He was given a two year contract to fulfil certain obligations, yes it is kind of useful that I will judge him after that two years. And I note that you are now deciding what my viewpoint is now. Where have I said that anything that happens will have nothign to do with Potter?



I think we all would like Saints to play dazzling rugby.



No, you implied it, otherwise why bring such an exteme example into your post?



Quite possibly, but the players would have been receiving a good amount of praise also. They aren't getting a good amout of criticism though (bar Pryce).



Our staleness in attack does have something to do with Potter, he obviously isn't as good a coach in attack as Millward was, but there are also other factors to that that are wilfully ignored by those whose main agenda is Potter bashing.



Would you not?

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.


No. Personally, I didn't notice any slippage. I did notice slippage in 2009.


I'm not sure they did. Old ways fade when new ways are introduced. I see it simply as a process which some (or all) of us began to notice at some point.


I would disagree that that is an example of my agenda. I simply did not see a deterioration prior to 2009. I saw change but not deterioration. I suppose whether or not a deterioration was observed would depend upon what criteria a fan holds by which to measure good rugby league.


He said he felt fine, just the eyelid was a problem (which seems to have pretty much resolved itself now, thankfully).


No idea. He didn't comment.


How do you know?


He was given a two year contract and apparently one obligation was integrating the young players into the team. I don't know of any other obligations other than one he cited himself which was to get the team off the silverware treadmill. He achieved that and I'm reserving judgment on his integration of the young players until his two years is up.


You have been expressing your viewpoint and so I have taken it on board as yours.


If I implied anything it was that if a coach is given credit for the good times then he must also be given credit for the bad. I cannot be responsible for what you inferred.