We have lost ONE game this year. ONE. If you think that is enough to sack a manager, then fine. But if that is the case, then we'll have at least 5 new managers every year, it's that simple. "Ooo, our manager made some incorrect decisions before a game we should have won. I know he's been very successful in his time here, but that, he can right off!"

The last point kinda is an issue when people say "we won't be able to win come season end because the players will be too knackered", were his selections so much different back then?



Why won't Saints best player Roby be as knackered as anyone else come September/October....he's done more than 120 tackles more than the next Saints player already this year as well as being their leading metre maker and taken over nearly 60 more carries than their next player.

Well, he might well be knackered by the end of the season. It's happened before. What have Saints won since Cunningham retired and Roby became a 50-tackle, 80-minute player?

He's a T1000.....



And the point about Saints winning nowt in recent seasons is a little unfair to Roby as the pack have been lightweight for a couple or three years as well as playing one season with two kids as half backs and following it up with two granddads at halves the year after.



Regarding Leeds on Friday, it'd seem your problem in that game (and maybe beyond) is your now ageing and arguably always uncreative halves. Watching the game, your pack did enough to allow your creative positions (6, 7, 9 & 13 in old money) to be able to come up with something....which they did not. One could claim that they were merely following coaching instructions but even so, quality players should be able to see the opportunities and take them rather than simply following that week's instruction......if indeed their instruction was to not include the centres. Southstander's match report used the word naivety for the performance, which is interesting considering the age of your influential players.....



Mention of subs not being used or used for short periods is valid too....all players should get a run and senior ones deserve a break. Perhaps its a skill in which your coach is lacking....maybe he was unsure when to introduce changes as the game was tight?

Roby thrives off the big men sucking in 3 and 4 defenders, then quick play the balls and he is in business.Last couple of years your front row hasn't been effective enough for him to do this often enough,it is now. And as you say he had too much responsibility on him as a whole.This year is different and you can see that quite clearly.



Regarding the sub issue, this is not just isolated to Friday and is something that has irked a lot of people on this board for as long as Mcdermott has been head coach.

....and I'm not saying Roby's performances have been anything less than acceptable....quite the opposite but yes, you're right in saying he had too much to do.



Saints coaches in years past (can't recall who) have also left a man on the bench or worse, brought him on with sixty seconds to go. In such a physical game, I cannot understand why......maybe there is a suitable reason. I remember being sub in a football game that was tight and not being put on with the manager's reason being that he couldn't change the balance of the game. At any level, one could argue the new player may change the balance in a positive way rather than cost the team. It may simply be that the sub isn't as good as the player to come off (in the coach's eye). Not sure that applies at this level.....although looking back it probably did when I froze my knackers watching us hang on for a 1-1 draw! Still, it was 1996 and I'm over it now.



Peacock: Surely its got to be detrimental to him (even at this late stage of his career) to be working his stones off only for some of his team mates not to deliver or his side not to get the result. As an observer, he looks like he should have retired years ago.....but he still does more (probably) than any other pack member and still delivers.