Unsurprising.

I love all this talk of boring rugby under Potter.



Until Leeds demolition of a walking corpse in the shape of Celtic Crusaders, Saints had scored more trys than any other SL team. So if we are boring what does that say about the other SL sides?



The team Potter has in terms of backs is the one that Anderson built, Anderson built his backs around size and power. Sides have to play to their strengths, and there is no point flinging the ball out wide in your own half if your team doesnt have the threequarters to exploit such play through pace.

This is something Saints lack. Until the lack of pace in the fullback, centres, and wings is addressed, Saints will appear boring to many fans. We will continue to have to play a power orientated game, that relies on big forwards setting up field position close to the opposition line, followed by excellently executed moves.

The main weakness of this approach is the one we all know from when the Bulls used, it. NO PLAN B. Having a side built on size and power almost guarantees you will be in the cut for the big games, but it also tends to leave you short of alternatives if the opposition raises its game in a big match. This is why Leeds keep doing us, and why Hudds defeated us this year in the cup.



Hopefully Potters development of the kids,(his primary task when recruited by Saints) will benefit us in the years to come, as many of these kids do possess pace. This should allow us then to vary our game, as Leeds have shown themselves capable of doing, eg mixing it up the middle or getting it wide and using pace.

You see this Is the exact mindset I dont get.

Because we didnt just struggle against teams that could raise their game on the day ala Leeds and Hudds as youve mentioned.

We strugled against an injury hit Crusaders who were out on their feet for the last 25 mins and we still didnt put a move on em.

It was mind numbingly boring against Salford at home,again no moves. In fact numerous home games last year Id given up watching and was chatting away to people around who had done the same.

Christ we didnt even have an offload game at times never mind flinging It out to the wings.

Ill agree that Potter was appointed with an eye on the development of the kids. I just hope he isnt developing them in a way that makes me stay home and watch the paint dry instead.

True. You never can string a coherent sentence together.

Good, because if he continues this coming season what he started during the last, you'll get an awful lot more of it!

Seeing as you said that you had gained some qualifications in coaching surely you can see the benefit in not changing coaches every year which is more or less what you're inferring by writing off Potter. I expect such flippant knee-jerk reactions from the less level-headed and emotionally stable, however from somebody who I perceive has an insight into developing players and playing style I think we're entitled to expect a bit more grace.

Not really.



Continuity comes from assistants and backroom

staff at many clubs. An average three year turnover of head coach is

not uncommon.



Potter is just not right for Saints.



He has some virtues but does not fit the

Saints ethos and more importantly does

not seem to be making any effort to

engage with the town.



If he goes then the whole backroom and the associated

youth policy will remain.

This is nothing new though. Its always gone on, not just at Saints but at every team. Its why we need a competitive league were no match is a walk over.

I suspect the increase in the league to 14 teams is one of the reasons for more none event matches. People forget that in the 12 team league we were often playing good sides 3 or 4 times a year. This meant more "big game" clashes.

Now we are playing teams just home and away, which exposes us to more poor opposition.



This then has the effect of the players switching off and taking the walkovers somewhat easily.



From a fatigue point of view there is also little pointing going 100% against weak opposition, especially if the following week a more challenging team faces Saints.

No I'm not. I don't think I've ever actually said we should get rid of Potter but I do believe I have said I would be quite happy to see him go if Saints produce the same awful stuff they produced for the final third of last season. As I understand it, and I think he vocalised it himself, the slower PTBs meant that Saints had to adapt their style from previous years. Potter appeared to answer that challenge with defensive moves, which IMO is a coaching cop out. It is easier to aim to stop other teams from scoring than to create moves to outwit them. However, such an approach results in deathly boring RL. If Potter turns out a revitalised attacking team this season then I'll be happy. However, if he simply produces more of the same then I will firmly join the Potter out camp, albeit it adapted to 'no contract extension for Potter'.





Not really. Saints were just as boring when all the first team were back from injury. They are seasoned players. While all good players should always be learning and growing, they were not developing in the way young players obviously are. I thought it ironic that the only player who stood out in the Grand Final was Eastmond. I just hope his flair hasn't been coached out of him by Potter in the off season but instead supported by inventive moves and the freedom to create opportunities.

Good grief, people are making Potter out to be some sort of rugby hating demon.

Hardly!



Given what happened to the team's style during the last third of the last season, it is perfectly feasible that Eastmond's spontaneity and flash could be reigned in by overly defensive rugby league. IMO it depends on (a) what approach Potter decides to take to the slower PTB etc this coming season, and (b) what kind of skills Potter has in his attack armoury. We haven't seen evidence of his ability to coach attack yet, other than about two moves, and so I think it is perfectly reasonable to wonder whether Potter's approach will snuff out Eastmond's flair. You clearly don't think that, but then I doubt you'd criticise Potter if he blew the place up! (And that's another example of hyperbole, just for the record)

he's had his first full off season with the lads, and knows them all, so lets just wait a bit eh?