There's still a fair chunk of the season to go yet, but at the moment, after 16 rounds, our points conceded per game average is the worst it's ever been in Super League. Worse than the gung Ho style of McRae and Millward, and the drab days of Simmons and Potter.

A boring post I admit but the stats show that what you're seeing at the moment just in terms of defence alone is pretty diabolical.

2016 25 points
2015 18 points
2014 20 points
2013 20 points
2012 17 points
2011 19 points
2010 20 points
2009 17 points
2008 17 points
2007 15 points
2006 15 points
2005 19 points
2004 23 points
2003 19 points
2002 18 points
2001 18 points
2000 22 points
1999 18 points
1998 20 points
1997 23 points
1996 20 points

I bet our attack is worst it's been also

2016 24
2015 26
2014 29
2013 25
2012 29
2011 29
2010 35
2009 27
2008 35
2007 29
2006 33
2005 37
2004 29
2003 30
2002 33
2001 33
2000 35
1999 34
1998 29
1997 27
1996 43

Thought so

You have to go back to 1993-94 for a worse attack but the defence average was 17.

I had to check. It's not just us lot having short memories, being spoilt with the good times. Our standards have dropped and have become acceptable to our coach and chairman. There's plenty of rounds still to play but there's no real sign of improvement. We win a couple, then get tonked and so on.

A good thread this. It cuts to the heart of the matter - we're way off traditional Saints standards in attack, and also significantly off in defence.

For those who like playing with numbers, the average points we scored in a match over the first 20 seasons was 31/32. So we're averaging two unconverted tries or one converted try and a penalty) less than our 20-year standard. That's pretty bad.

In defence, we conceded an average of essentially 19 points per game over the last 20 years. So this year we're letting in one converted try more, on average, in every game.

I don't want to get too Phil Clarke about this, because averages hide a lot of variation, but we're in a bad way, and it's not just fans being fickle. Our attack and defence are both the worst they've been for twenty years. That's not because every other club in SL has got better at the same time.

For me, the obvious problem is in our backs. Every team in SL has now clocked that because our backs tend to be small, slow men, if they can spread the ball wide, then they've a very good chance of breaking our line and going the distance. Similarly, when we have the ball, opponents know that they can seriously compress their defensive line, because even if we did pass the ball out, which we rarely do, our backs are easily caught and tackled.

I don't think our forwards are bad. I think their options are limited because of the aforementioned compressed defence other teams put out against us. But when was the last time we had a Saints team where there wasn't a single threequarter who was even vaguely likely to be selected for an international squad from -any- country?

I don't understand why clubs persist in signing undersize juniors. Halfback is about the only position you can get away with being small now. It doesn't matter how nippy or quick a small kid is, the only role they are ever likely to suit is halfback.

They sign young kids on how they are at the moment but need a crystal ball to see how they will develop physically.

Some kids who are huge at scholarship time are usually the less skilled lad who just runs thru as he's big and more than often goes missing when he Comes up against players as big.

Also, these kids start getting proper training and nutrition and some can shoot up in height and size while others just don't.

Pete, I agree that there are no guarantees of future size. However there's a few clues, like the size of relatives, and also, most taller adolescents become taller adults - it's not a complete lottery.

A big problem for us, I think, is that clubs are lazy in talent-spotting. They rely on a high degree of self-selection (lads already choosing to play league). Given the way sport works in schools, we can be sure that most of the big athletic kids from their early teens will be playing soccer. It's for RL clubs to find a way of persuading some of these lads that they have a much more realistic chance of a pro sports career if they switch to RL.

Similarly, it's not good enough to just keep the most determined early-show kids. If coaching means anything, it should mean the ability of junior coaches to develop fringe candidates into real contenders. If they can't, then what value do those coaches add?

There are tens of thousands of big athletic lads born all across this country every year. For many of them, a pro sports career is a dream. Most will drift out of any sport in their mid-teens, while a large part of the remainder will spend their lives on park soccer pitches long after any chance of a pro-soccer career is over, but when a pro-RL career remains possible. Yet we only seem able to identify and develop a series of below-average-height, not-particularly-fast lads who are very keen, but lack the size or speed to ever rise above mediocrity.

Totally be fair, saints are pretty good at getting good young players but did miss out on few from brook why went Wigan .

Our youth policy is ticking Over but we only produce decent super league players wirh odd top player every now and then.

It's hard to know whst a 15 year old lad will grow like in say 4 years.

Saints have brought some big lads thru in recent years in Thompson, Richards, Savelio, Greenwood and Knowles so we got the size thing right but not the quality

Thank you for that Professor Stanley Unwin.

I don't get the nature of your post but "I'll carry on regardless " and it seems you just spout "gobbledygook" anyway