I don't think this is true at all. I mean, sure - it would be great to capture one or two new signings. Maybe we will. I don't know.

But right now I'd just settle for a season in which we aren't blitzed by lengthy (or worse - season long) injuries to key personnel.

It's no co-incidence that Huddersfield's form has peaked - precisely at a period when they've had a settled side.

Aside from the first five games we've not had a settled side all year.

Excuse after excuse. Every team has injuries throughout the season. We're not a special case. Hull brought a team last week that were missing seven players.

The rugby is BORING Muggers. Unimaginative, one up rubbish.

I think the effort is there. It's been there all season. What's missing is leadership, direction and tactical awareness.

Injuries are random events. So - no. Injuries are not spread equally across all teams throughout the season.

But even if they were - losing your first choice scrum half for twelve months is a hell of a lot more problematic than losing your first choice winger.



So? Over the years I've seen sides full of reserves win games. This doesn't mean any of them will start six weeks later when the first teamers return.

The clue is in the word - "competition".



What, I'm the coach all of a sudden?

.....you probably wouldn't do any worse

I'm sure fans of every single club believe their team has been hit hard by injuries. Obviously we focus more on our own team.

I'm getting bored of injuries being used as an excuse now.

Do people want the midget Quinlan kept on next year ?

same old excuses from same people.

We've got a full complimant of props, we have not got one single prop missing. We have all three centres fit plus our back up in dawson. We even dropped one centre in Jordan Turner. We have had both halves back for past 5 weeks. We now have tommy back so both first choice wingers playing. Only Vea missing from Backrow but superstar greenwood and the Lms in there so pretty well covered.

We have a virtual full line up and settled team.

No excuses! The players, the coaching staff are the ones to blame, not injuries or any other excuse these posters can invent.

There's a number of issues at the minute for me.

Walsh has not come back the same player he was prior to the injury, he's out of form and isn't directing the side around.

Burns is not the player that was described when we signed him (others will probably say 'I told you so'), but whilst he appears indestructible, he's next to useless in directing the team around (and to think some on here wanted him to be captain at the beginning of the season because he shouted at Vea in a scrum). He's been a poor signing so far.

Wilkin is injured, it's not a coincidence that we've fallen to bits during the period he's been missing. He's the only other player, bar Walsh, that can effectively direct the team around the park.

Confidence looks shot, especially in defence. Players are second guessing themselves, hesitating, trying too hard, etc. all over the park and it's leading to easy tries being conceded.

The first three things Cunningham can do little about, I'm one of those that doesn't like kids being chucked into weakened sides unless it's necessary, but the last one, the confidence is his (and the coaching staff) job to change. It's not working at the moment, and changes need to be made, but I don't think that's necessarily him being sacked. He needs to learn from this experience.

Next Year!!, I wouldn't want him in the next game. Swifty was playing full back,wing and prop forward last night whilst Quinlan was tackling an "invisible man" and not interested in a decent kick return. We don't have a decent offloading game now, so Quinlan is very much negated and a passenger who can catch a high ball with nothing to offer after that.

I couldn't care less whether you think it's an excuse or not. Right now the truth is that we have one functioning halfback. And he's injured.

How we have arrived at this position is an entirely different question. But it doesn't make it any less true.

And if teams could play successfully without halfbacks for any length of time - there'd be no need for halfbacks.

He's definitely more of a dry-pitch player. Maybe we could get more out of him in the halves (which wouldn't be difficult) - but that leaves us needing someone else to hold down the full-back spot.

At the start of the year (when Saints were playing very well) I did wonder whether we'd set the balance of backs-versus-forwards promoted into the first team correctly. At the time it looked like we had plenty of big, powerful forwards but very little in terms of speed, power or guile in the backs. With hindsight we really should have paid more attention to this shortfall.

No. I also think we need to be hardnosed and get rid of McDonnell. Wasting 2 spots and precious salary on two average FB's.

I noticed that too. There was a period in the game where Hudds threw up 3 or 4 bombs in quick succession and Swift dealt with everyone. Quinlan was nowhere to be seen.

I agree that Quinlan should not be offered a contract. I think McDonnell, assuming he recovers fully from his achilles rupture, is a useful player to have around, though. He offers solid backup at full back and can compete for positions across the backline.

Shouldn't this year's fiasco with Walsh teach us something about whether or not it's a good idea to start a new season with key players under an injury cloud?

Quinlan is awful. He's so average and bar a couple of breaks (albeit one match winner vs Warrington) he's been bang average. I'd rather have Dawson on the wing with swift at full back I think...

I like McDonnell, he's a useful player. That break against Salford was incredible. He's just not going to be the same player after an Achilles injury though. It sounds harsh but we need to pay himand Walsh off and send them back to Australia along with Quinlan.

If we are going to pay off both Walsh & McDonnell - we should pay off Lomax, too.

If there's one lesson we need to take from this season it is that long-term injuries require a lot more time to get over than the stated recovery period - if at all.

Even if Lomax is fit for the first game of next year - it'll probably take him half the season to return to something like his best form (if that is even possible).

If that's the best we can come up with Burns, then we're screwed.

I've just looked at Burns stats for this season and despite playing alot more games than Walsh he has scored less tries, less try assists and less clean breaks and this is despite Walsh being absolutely woeful.

Our half backs are clueless and I'd argue that Burns has been one of the worst half back signings we've made in my time watching this club since the early 90's. He is a waste of space and quite frankly the pair of them need dropping. We were better off when Jordan Turner stepped in at half back for the 2nd half yesterday which tells us exactly how bad the pair of them have been. The fact KC has stuck with them gives me very little confidence in his ability to coach us either.

Jon Wilkin's return can't come soon enough.

Look, I'm not exactly jumping over the moon about Burns, either. But unless we are going to cut the guy loose (expensive) we're just going to have to learn to live with his limitations.

Right now he's fit. Which is more than we can say about Walsh. And we know that Burns & Wilkin can function as an effective partnership. Indeed, Saints' best form was with that pairing.

Sans any other suggestions I think we should go with those two and take Walsh out of the firing line. Who knows - maybe a few weeks away from the pressure will be the spur he needs. I bloody hope so.

To be fair to Quinlan - he was always on a loser coming into a club at such short notice with the kind of creative difficulties we are experiencing.

Most oversees players need anywhere between six and twelve months to find their feet. Given that no-one in Australia seems all that sure about whether he's a half or a back it's lunacy to expect him suddenly to start tearing up it up.

On a wet pitch his size is a real problem, tho. Personally I think he should have come forward a bit more often and provided some kind of variation out of the dummy half. He is pretty quick over the first twenty and he has very good hands. At least it would have made Huddersfield think twice about stacking up to defend against Roby all the time.

The funny thing is against Warrington he did precisely that. And it worked. Whether he was told not to go forward - or he just couldn't be d, who knows?

I don't disagree with what you say apart from the size bit. It doesn't bother the likes of Matty Bowen, Lomax etc

Just a thought, and probably not for this season but the following two years of his contract: might Burns give us better service as a rotation hooker? It would suit his competitiveness and would take pressure off his decision making in defence. Then we could slot someone else into 6, whether that's young Richardson or a signing (*cough*Eastmond*cough*).

When you think about it Burns started to lose form when Walsh returned to the side, the first 6 weeks of the season Burns went OK not fantastic but kept the team ticking over. Walsh returns with mental doubt about his injury, could,t get back to last seasons form and Burns no longer knows what his role is in the team, so who is responsible for this situation were our halves play like total strangers with each other.

I don't think the answer is terminating their contracts but to get it fixed, Walsh and Burns can't really play any other position than in the halves. Richardson could be 2 seasons away from being a first team player, the only cost effective option is to go lower league, could possibly go for the much improved Gaskell from Bradford who could play fullback, centre, stand off and scrum half.