Re: full credit to wigan : Sun Oct 19, 2014 1:58 pm  

nohalfbacks wrote:

I disagree as do all my Saints friends. If Wigan had taken their chances your so called winning strategy would have looked pretty stupid. Saints only needed to have taken one or two overlap chances and the game would have been sown up.

It's a pretty daft strategy to say at half time that "Wigan will create chances but blow them and so don't go passing out wide and scoring when we don't need to".

Ifs and buts don't win the games mate. Saints played to their strengths and we got lucky Flower blew his top.

All teams play to their own strengths. We was scoring for fun at the start of last year when we had lomax at fullback, two halves and Wilkin in there but when we lost our strike players we had to win by any means possible. We had to find a way to win games which after the Warrington humiliation at langtree was based on defence and conservative rugby.

Obviously finishing top and winning the grand final proves that we did find a way to win games.

Re: full credit to wigan : Sun Oct 19, 2014 2:09 pm  

nohalfbacks wrote:

Oh really. Perhaps you could elaborate without repeating yourself?

You seem to think that 13 v 12 should automatically result in a boat load of gaps and overlaps and an absolute try-fest, regardless of the personnel that is left within that 13. That is far from the case.

Re: full credit to wigan : Sun Oct 19, 2014 2:55 pm  

The Yellow Giraffe wrote:

You seem to think that 13 v 12 should automatically result in a boat load of gaps and overlaps and an absolute try-fest, regardless of the personnel that is left within that 13. That is far from the case.

Not at all, I am merely commenting on the overlaps that were actually created and then not exploited. It could have cost Saints the game. Fortunately for you it didn't otherwise this conversation would be quite different. All my Saints fans commented on this and agree with me! I am not in any way trying to argue that Wigan should have won. Saints ground out a win and therefore deserve it. That doesn't mean that they played a perfect game.

Re: full credit to wigan : Sun Oct 19, 2014 2:58 pm  

nohalfbacks wrote:

Not at all, I am merely commenting on the overlaps that were actually created and then not exploited. It could have cost Saints the game. Fortunately for you it didn't otherwise this conversation would be quite different. All my Saints fans commented on this and agree with me! I am not in any way trying to argue that Wigan should have won. Saints ground out a win and therefore deserve it. That doesn't mean that they played a perfect game.

But why didn't we play the perfect game? And why didn't we make the most of the overlaps created? That's the bit you seem to be missing.

Re: full credit to wigan : Sun Oct 19, 2014 3:02 pm  

St pete wrote:

Ifs and buts don't win the games mate. Saints played to their strengths and we got lucky Flower blew his top.

All teams play to their own strengths. We was scoring for fun at the start of last year when we had lomax at fullback, two halves and Wilkin in there but when we lost our strike players we had to win by any means possible. We had to find a way to win games which after the Warrington humiliation at langtree was based on defence and conservative rugby.

Obviously finishing top and winning the grand final proves that we did find a way to win games.

You are completely missing the point. I am not trying to suggest that Wigan should have won or that Saints didn't play to the strengths they had left. I am merely observing that not taking the overlaps that were created without recognised halfbacks appears to be a poor option to me and all my Saints friends. You are free to disagree which you obviously do. In all games players take good and bad options. In the same game Matty Bowen took the wrong option of not passing to Charnley and if he had then Wigan may have won the game. But he didn't. In the same way Saints took the wrong option of not exploiting the overlap which they had created. In the end it didn't matter but it could have done. All ifs and buts I agree bit that is sport.

Re: full credit to wigan : Sun Oct 19, 2014 3:05 pm  

The Yellow Giraffe wrote:

But why didn't we play the perfect game? And why didn't we make the most of the overlaps created? That's the bit you seem to be missing.

I have already explained why! That is what you seem to be missing! Read my previous posts and then perhaps you might start to actually listen to my point. However by now I don't expect you to agree.

Re: full credit to wigan : Sun Oct 19, 2014 3:11 pm  

nohalfbacks wrote:

I have already explained why! That is what you seem to be missing! Read my previous posts and then perhaps you might start to actually listen to my point. However by now I don't expect you to agree.

Your explanation consists of either Brown is rubbish or we are papering over the cracks! You don't actually have a valid point.

Re: full credit to wigan : Sun Oct 19, 2014 3:40 pm  

The Yellow Giraffe wrote:

Your explanation consists of either Brown is rubbish or we are papering over the cracks! You don't actually have a valid point.

Now you are talking rubbish. I never once said that Bowen was rubbish. I merely used him as an example of how players take wrong options.

My valid point is that Saints did actually create overlaps without recognised halfbacks. They then decided not to exploit them. That could have been because, like Bowen, they chose the wrong option or it could be because the game plan was not to take the ball out wide. If it was then that is a strange strategy when a team has an extra man.

I do have a valid point that is actually one that my Saints friends pointed out and I happen to agree with. You clearly disagree which is fine. Its your defensive opinion.

Re: full credit to wigan : Sun Oct 19, 2014 3:43 pm  

nohalfbacks wrote:

Now you are talking rubbish. I never once said that Bowen was rubbish. I merely used him as an example of how players take wrong options.

Read the quote you replied to again.

Re: full credit to wigan : Sun Oct 19, 2014 3:45 pm  

Albion wrote:

Read the quote you replied to again.

And your point is?