...we're better offloaders than you?

It still leaves us playing reletively narrow to you.
If our pack wasn't a handful, you wouldn't have spent the whole 1st half in your own half of the pitch and indeed, we wouldn't have been afforded so many offloads.

imo ,you can make what you wish as far as match stats go ,i tend to just watch the game and look at the scoreboard ,hey,it works for me

Brilliant. We might aswell close up the discussion boards now, then.

fs chill out

stats can be made to mean anything you wish them too,again, -->imo,you have yours i have mine,roll on g/f day see what stats they throw up

Just found another stat

Matches won on Saturday 29th September 2012

St. Helens 0
Warrington 1

really you actually took time out to write that? wow

Brings to mind one of my favourite Homer Simpson quotes: "Facts? Pffff... What good are facts? Facts can be used to prove anything even [iremotely[/i true..."

Having watched the game back again, saints had loads of ball in the first half, and with it loads of territory... 5 penalty's to 1 and a few drop outs.. yet you only went in at half time with a few point lead.

The second half our pack totally took yours apart. The easy victory was on the back of that dominance. Our forwards looked fresh as daises with 30 to go and yours looked totally knackered.... that's not the sign of a pack that got 'dominated' is it? Your pack burnt itself out, ours moved up a gear and won the game.

Interesting when you look at the yardage stats of the 2 packs (without hookers) next to each other.

Warringtons pack made over a yard more per carry.
Warringtons pack also had 5 players averaging over 7 yards per carry
Saints pack had 1 player averaging over 7 yards per carry.

Yes - our pack burnt itself out in the first 50 minutes because it was constantly running into a brick wall that our backs couldn't find a door in. How could they not start to tire and their heads and morale start to drop under the circumstances? And don't try and claim, as some numpties have in similar circumstances in the past, that desperately defending on your own line the entire first half was some clever tactic that you put in place deliberately to save energy or whatever - you did that because you were forced to by our complete forward superiority. If we'd had any nouse or creativity or any kind of a clue at all then we'dve have a 20 point lead at half time easy and the game would have been basically over. Our forwards would have come out for the second half on a high and would likely have carried on the punishment, instead of coming out with the creeping sense of doom we all felt being only 2 points up instead. Your forwards would never have had the chance they did in the second half to get some respectability into their previously pwn'ed numbers by running riot against a by then completely demoralised side.

Anyway - I can't be mythered arguing the point anymore. I reckon our pack is at least as good as anyone else's in the league at the moment and the facts and the stats back that assertion up in spades. You may think otherwise, but you're wrong. Let's leave it at that, eh?

-fact-we won,we are in the g/f your not-fact

hang on... not so long ago you were saying you have the best pack in the league.... now its at least as good as anyone elses.... In this thread you claim the stats proved that you absolutely creamed us in the forwards... then the stats show our forwards were the more effective... then you deliver a load of 'ifs' and 'buts'.... and then you say im wrong.

yes i think we will leave it at that.

Like you say, we had more than good enough possesesion and territory.
If we had the abilty out wide of a team like you or wigan, we'd likely have gone in with a (much) better lead.

To refer to the old adage - We carried the piano into position, but didn't have anyone who could play.

You are just reinforcing our point. Saints pack isn't the issue at all. It consistently lays a sufficient platform for the team to score points off. Had your backs or Wigan's, or Leeds' had 50 minutes of territorial dominance, they would have come away with at least an 18 point lead, if not more.

Saints' problem is that our halves are miles behind Warrington's, Leeds' and Wigan's. Our outside backs are also and we simply don't have a fullback in attacking terms. So we can have 50 minutes of almost complete territorial dominance, have tons more possession and still come away with only a 2 point lead.

Having 50 minutes of control of the game means our pack is good enough, at least good enough, to match the other top sides in SL. It's a much better pack than Leeds' and easily on par with yourselves and Wigan. What we lack is a fullback, a centre and two half backs to create those gaps and plays that ultimately turn territory and possession into points. I've no problem admitting Wire are a lot better than Saints, you have the things we desperately need, a quality fullback, two good centres, quality half backs.

You'd have no problem admitting Batley are better than us, most weeks


Add goal kicker and game plan to that list.
[iI'm probably being a little harsh on Makinson's goal kicking, its been ok for the most part. Certianly no worse than Cam Smith's and he got another winners medal at the weekend. It did however hurt us at the weekend when Hodgeson was knocking them over from similar positions.[/i

Very true.

Throw TMak to fullback, Jamie Foster on the wing with Josh Jones protecting him, Lee Gaskell in the halves and we're good to go. I just hope Brown has the cojones to actually put it into plan or whether he'll pander to McManus and Hohaia and ruin another season with that deadweight at 6.

the only point i was arguing against was this one.



which is obviously wrong, as the stats show the opposite.

You wont find me arguing about your lack of creativity in the halves, or your lack of quality in your outside backs, as that's there for all to see. But if you choose to watch that first half back, you will see that the territory was built on the back of the penalty count and the turnover of ball, rather than our pack being 'creamed'. Your pack didn't make huge yards with the ball in hand (as the stats show)... The majority of the huge yards came from the boot.

If Brown ever wants to hit the heights of coach he talks about (ie getting an NRL gig), then he HAS to be a success at Saints - which means winning trophies. If he lets Lance Hohaia stand in his way (a plyer he's already made comments in the media about), then he's a very poor choice of coach.

He likes to tinker, anyway. I'd suggest, even if he likes Lance, he'll shift him about and hopefully prove we're better without him at #6.

There may have been an exaggeration by one poster, but being able to control posession and play without giving away penalties are important aspects of the game for a forward pack - penalties and errors can be forced, remember. In the 2nd half we lost this composure (the wilkin high shot on westwood springs to mind) as we lost control of the game.

We have a good pack. Half our backs are good players, but are suffering in our set up.

Michael Shenton has been bemoaned as a poor signing, but his glimpses of form after he announced his return to Cas showed what ability he had. God forbid Wigan had got him instead of us becuase, with his ability to run onto a ball in his channel combined with their moves from deep, he'd have ripped it up over the last couple of years.

i agree with everything you have said.... and nowhere has anyone said you have a bad pack.

Can't see him coming back any time soon.

Imortance of wingers qualities these days seem to go in the following order -
1) Safety with kicks
2) bring the ball out of your own half
3) simple finishing
4) advanced finishing

Foster lost point 1 and never really had 2 and 4.
If he can get his safe hands back,then he's worth having for his goal kicking, but you can't take to the field with makinson and Foster as your wingers. They're collectively too small and can't get us a roll on at the beginning of the set.

What we've done with Shenton is just yet another painful demonstration of the terrible waste of talent our team's been guilty of for 4 years now...

I don't think makinson is the man for fullback, I question his positional play in attack and also in defence.

Lance Hohaia IMO is the man for the job.