SaintsFan wrote:I appreciate your inclination to extract the Michael. It's what I'd do if the situation was reversed. Banter and all that.

However, we weren't just missing four players. We were missing our first choice hooker and scrum half and our second choice hooker (Lomax) and scrum half (Eastmond), not to mention two of our props (leaving just the one, with second rowers acting as props). The scrum half on the pitch was playing only his second match at first grade level and, bless him, he's been on the losing side on both counts in spite of doing nothing wrong himself (so his confidence may be screwed!). You might have noticed that we lacked organisation on the pitch. That's what happens when you're down to a scrum half who has only two matches to his name (and an impact hooker who is great on the impact but not so hot on the organisation).

You try playing a game with that mix in your team, bearing in mind all the changing around that has to be done. IMO it's a wonder you didn't put a cricket score on us. And we've been dealing with worse than this for the last two months so we're basically all knackered and much in need of that week off being out of the Challenge Cup will give us.

Gordon Gekko wrote:Thats fair enough argument and i don't dispute you were missing some genuine quality from your team.

But 13 of the 17 who played yesterday were pretty much first choice and all bar Puletua played in last seasons Grand Final.

Captain Dave wrote:Sky reported the game as a 'shock victory' for Hull KR but I think that had as much to do with sensationalism journalism as not admitting the competition has levelled out more.

SaintsFan wrote:I know. That's how it looks to everyone. But the whole team is focused around our hooker and half back combo; that's fundamental to the way we operate and, tbh, I think most teams would struggle without any representation in those spots. Unfortunately, or perhaps because Potter is clueless (not fully decided on that yet), Pryce did not step up and take control as he did at Wakey, for instance. He was the only one left on the pitch who was in the right role to do that. We had no generals out there. None. We were aimless, clueless and ripe for a pickin. Deserved it, we did. Not disputing that. But to simply focus on the numbers we had missing, which is what the poster I was originally replying to did, is to miss the point, albeit a totally irrelevant one!

The match I dread most is against Leeds. We are in for a cricket score of a hiding, much to everyone's delight, no doubt!

phil webbo wrote:What suprises me is when you handed Leeds their ar$ses in the CC everyone was raving that the answer to your problems was John Wilkin, so what's changed, because you had Wilkin and Price on the pitch, I think its a bit rich to make the excuse you had no half back combo's, I think it would be fairer to say Potter got it wrong.

SaintsFan wrote:I know. That's how it looks to everyone. But the whole team is focused around our hooker and half back combo; that's fundamental to the way we operate and, tbh, I think most teams would struggle without any representation in those spots. Unfortunately, or perhaps because Potter is clueless (not fully decided on that yet), Pryce did not step up and take control as he did at Wakey, for instance. He was the only one left on the pitch who was in the right role to do that. We had no generals out there. None. We were aimless, clueless and ripe for a pickin. Deserved it, we did. Not disputing that. But to simply focus on the numbers we had missing, which is what the poster I was originally replying to did, is to miss the point, albeit a totally irrelevant one!

The match I dread most is against Leeds. We are in for a cricket score of a hiding, much to everyone's delight, no doubt!

barham red wrote:Let me get this right, you're 1st choice hooker was out, yet you replace him with a former man of steel yet you claim to be missing a hooker. The SH role was a loss but with so many internationals and 2 MOS's on the pitch surely someone should have stepped up.

phil webbo wrote:What suprises me is when you handed Leeds their ar$ses in the CC everyone was raving that the answer to your problems was John Wilkin

SaintsFan wrote:Like I said, I would have expected Pryce to do that in the absence of our hookers and scrum halves (Roby is an impact hooker only; he hasn't got much in the way of organisational skill and we have only ever played him as impact, which is where he is effective). However, Pryce did not step up this time, presumably because Potter had some other plan in mind or maybe because Pryce is weary of doing the job. Who knows. I don't.


That is exactly what we thought. Wilkin and Pryce together at that match were sheer genius. It was tried again just a few weeks ago against Wakey and was rubbish. I have absolutely no idea what changed, but change it did. Presumably that is why it didn't happen either last week or this.

I'm suspecting Potter gets quite a few things wrong but that just sounds like sour grapes.

Wouldn't mind your coach. Pity he wanted to stay with you! (Don't blame him mind!)

SaintsFan wrote:Like I said, I would have expected Pryce to do that in the absence of our hookers and scrum halves (Roby is an impact hooker only; he hasn't got much in the way of organisational skill and we have only ever played him as impact, which is where he is effective). However, Pryce did not step up this time, presumably because Potter had some other plan in mind or maybe because Pryce is weary of doing the job. Who knows. I don't.


That is exactly what we thought. Wilkin and Pryce together at that match were sheer genius. It was tried again just a few weeks ago against Wakey and was rubbish. I have absolutely no idea what changed, but change it did. Presumably that is why it didn't happen either last week or this.

I'm suspecting Potter gets quite a few things wrong but that just sounds like sour grapes.

Wouldn't mind your coach. Pity he wanted to stay with you! (Don't blame him mind!)