One things for sure, if he was in charge still he wouldn't have gone into the season without a experinced halfback and certainly wouldn't have signed a fullback to play halfback.

I'm with you in this minority.



Our rugby was relentless - cruel defence, total respect of possession and played the game in the oppositions half for the most part. But, bloody hell, it was tedious at times.



During the 2006 season, which brought unprecedented success for Saints, I don't recall leaving the stadium feeling that breatheless wonder that a top game of RL can do to you.



I'm not convinced Simmons is the right bloke, but when we replace him, I want a coach who'll bring back the exciting brand we're renowned for.



And not Millward. I can do without the 50, 60, 70 point humilations, ta.

Boring winning > exciting losing > boring losing

Edit.



As I say, I'm not convinced RS is the guy and it's been a while since I can say we've played the brand of rugby that I love to watch (pains me to say it but Wire are the closest to it at present), but DA isn't either - he had a far better playing roster than Simmons, and was clearly outcoached by McClennan when it mattered.



If new blood is needed, let's make it new.

As in the post above, that team was capable of exciting winning, maybe even better suited to it with some of the flair players in the squad. As Wayne Bennett would say, don't die with the music in you. Or as the Brian Smith coaching school would say, die with the ball in your hands, and kick on the 5th.

Whilst I think the monkey thing is OTT, I do agree that Anderson was far from the perfect coach and indeed the whole Brian Smith stable of coaches have similar flaws, i reckon he'd have us on a much steadier ship right now.



Let's see what Saturday brings. I'm almost over last friday and am starting to feel unduly positive again.

No to Anderson. Yes to him coming to coach our defence but no to his attacking flair. Having one move in rugby league i.e. the loop around move, is no longer good enough. Look at Hull on Friday. They weren't mega but still had good ball control and more than one move in their playbook which gives them at least one more than Anderson had.

You're assuming Anderson hasn't adapted his coaching style in the years since he has been gone. Millward used to hate the notion of defence yet Leigh defended well under him and Cas were showing signs of increasingly good defence prior to the tragedy which resulted in Millward taking time off.



The return of Daniel Anderson could be just what this rather mentally weak side needs.

That all well and good but he isnt coming so we have to deal with what we have.

Whilst i agree with what you say about going in without an experienced halfback (it would help immensly right now if we had one) can i just mention,Pryce who wasnt a 6 ( Anderson would of had to agree his signing for the position ),Lockyer who started as full back,Widdop who started at full back, and im sure there are many other examples that prove starting at fullback doesnt rule you out of being a halfback.

Aha, I see where you are going with this. Wellens started at half back before becoming a full back, you are suggesting him as the solution to our half back problem?

I think we can reshuffle our deck all day long, in the end the team on the pitch is good enough, we've not been hammered, but they are hardly at full tilt of their capabilities either.