Yes! There was! But at the end of the day it doesn't bloody matter! We gave away a 26-6 lead in 30 bloody minutes! And Potter is pleased with the effort! Man. Short of losing half our team to injury, there really isn't any excuse for that.

No he isn't. He isn't making assumptions. Nor am I for that matter. I'm going on the scoreline, which shows we lost a commanding lead in 30 minutes. That's a fact. It really doesn't matter how we did it. We shouldn't have done it but we did.

if you'd rather base your ideas on what you've read than that's fine, I prefer to actually attend or at least see the highlights of games before jumping to conclusions.

There is an attitude problem, just like there was at Salford. The fact is (injuries or not) that team should be putting 40 plus on a team like Hull, and would have if they didn't let their performance dip. Is that down to the coach? Possibly, but at the end of the day it's the players themselves that need to take a look in the mirror after games like this.

A different team came out for the second half, and that isn't on.

Still, it doesn't mean Potter is wrong when he says that he is pleased with the effort. Teams concede points when they are tired, and by all accounts Saints had to put up with a lot of pressure, and they tired, Hull scored 21 points in this time, it happens, but it does not mean that there was a lack of effort. It could well mean Hull had all the momentum and Saints tired late in the game due to the amount of defensive work they had to do.

And we don't actually have to be at the match to know this, do we? It's all in the scoreline. Or more accurately, the rapid change in scoreline.

How many away games could you have said that about SaintsFan this season.
But I'll tell you what, if by some luck stroke Saints get to Wembley, no doubt she'll be there.

That Potter was pleased with the effort in giving away a 26-6 lead in 30 minutes says enough about Potter for me, to be honest. Sooner he goes the better IMO.


All teams have to do that. Hull had to do it in the first half and look what happened to them? They won. No excuses for me. That same team beat Leeds beautifully and beat Hull KR convincingly twice. Sorry, but the team were poor and the coach is poor for saying he is happy with their effort. I've nothing more to add to that really.

Nope. I won't be able to afford that either. I'll be unemployed or at the very best earning the minimum wage. If I'm lucky.

So go take the pi$$ elsewhere.

Your talking to someone who was on £3 a week, and still managed to attend games.
Now that is taking the pi$$.

'should be putting 40 plus on a team like Hull' how patronising! you are aware we had already beaten you this season? we're not exactly propping up the table this year either.

The team wasn't the same as the one that played Leeds. We had more key forwards available when we played Leeds than we did against Hull.

Hull had to do that in the first half, and they tired quicker than us, and conceded a lot of points in the process as we had the momentum and the pressure was being put on them. The second half the opposite happened and they had the momentum, hence we tired quicker and they put the pressure on, scoring a similar amount of points that we did in the first half. It happens, it doesn't mean there was a lack of effort.

I don't know how you can say that we should be putting 40 points on a team like Hull, especially with the injuries that we have. Many people expected us to get beat quite comfortably tonight, never mind having blew a good chance to win the game. Hull are 4th in the league (and were before tonight), on top of that we have many key players out injured, so i don't really know how you can say we should be sticking 40 points on Hull, Salford, maybe, but not Hull. Maybe at full strength we should be beating them quite comfortably, but even then at Hull, we wouldn't get it all our own way, but i would back us to win by maybe 20-30 points.

Maybe the 20 in the first half was an indication?

Like i've said mate, different circumstances arise. I don't know exactly what happened as i wasn't able to make the game, however, it sounds as though we had all the possession and put all the pressure on in the first half, and the in the second half, it was the opposite, these things happen. We could well have been lucky to get those 20 points, doesn't mean we deserved to be the 20 points up.

I fail to see how you can expect an injury hit side to stick 40 points on a team away from home that is placed 4th in the league. It sounds as though we had a good spell in the game in the first half, and the roles reversed in the second half. Hopefully, a lot of the young players will learn from this experience and learn how to close the game out. I'm just making assumptions really, as i wasn't at the game, but you can't surely expect 3rd placed in the league to beat 4th placed by 40 points (away) at full strength, never mind with a lengthy injury list.

You might have thrown a lead away but it wasn't a case of you going to pieces. 26-6 didn't reflect how the game had gone up to that point. We just started to get more posession and stopped giving away penalties and this changed the game.

Red button told you that as well did it?

You lot just can't get used to not winning every week. Super league is evening out and most sides are going to get beat regularly. Get used to it or go back to what you used to do before you became glory supporters

exactly

saints went on a roll for 10-15 minutes when they scored 18 points. For the other 65 plus mins hull were the better side

Why should you be putting 40 points plus by us,quite an arrogant assumption i think.Saints are a great team but don't think they have a right to win,it has to be fought for.Once our pack got on top you were back pedalling.We have a bit of mongrel in the pack now,although Lauaki was out you couldn't cope with Fitz,Willie Manu,and O'Meley in the second half.Hope young Roby is ok,a fine young player.

ok so we should really have beat you 42-0 then considering the 21 we scored in the second half





or maybe it should have been 48-0 seeing as we were 6-0 up after 10 mins


You obviously never went to the game and instead are basing all your opinions on the overly biased report on the saints web site which states you were excellent in the first 40 mins.

The facts are you had a 15 min spell were you were awarded penalty after penalty which resulted in saints having almost all the possesion. This period also resulted in saints scoring 18 points. When hull stopped giving penalties away and the possesion evened up there was only one team in it.

just a quick note about saints having players missing, so did we, 5, all would be guarenteed starting places, maybe we could have put 40 past saints if we was at full strength too! then again, like some, maybe i'm being presumptious!

Christ, a bite that size from the winning fans. Brilliant.

What next, a thread on the Hull board at half time asking for your coach to be sacked?

...

Potter's tactics?

5 drives up the middle and a kick-the only way he knows.

Do the honourable thing and go home now

Yeah but it was only a penny to get in the ground Brian.

I agree with the guy who said having 1 prop interchange was poor by Potter as we had 3 sat on the bench. In the second half your big guys just ran out of steam were as Hulls pack looked fresh and on the back of a good kicking game the momentum of the game changed our way. Cracking game and yes it is easy to say that having won. Good luck for the rest of the season and you'll have my support at wembly should you get there.