This isn't very helpful - not least because one of the first criticisms which pops up in the wake of any run of bad form by any club you club you care to mention (after "incompetent"/"cheating" refs) is "unimaginative play".



I'd argue it's more a function of psychological stress than any specific gameplan. When faced with challenging circumstances human beings are genetically pre-programmed to behave more conservatively. It's a survival mechanism which given our position as the dominant form of life on this planet it seems to work.



Why exactly our players have gone into their shell so early in the season is an interesting question to which I don't know the answer.

It's odd that our players suffer this 'psychological stress' A) more often than most teams and B) when we're winning, losing or drawing.

Nonsense. It is our pre-determined tactic and gameplan, as confirmed by both Jon Wilkin and Sean Long last week. Ultra-conservative is our style of play, regardless of opposition or position in the match.



It wouldn't be such a bad thing if we were actually any good at it, but 8 defeats in our past 12 games show that this tactic isn't working.

It's a perfectly recognisable phenomenon we see repeated in the workplace each day. It's possible that the players are afraid of making mistakes because of the way the coaching staff responds to them making mistakes. I'm not saying this is the reason for them keeping things so tight because there are other possibilities. The point is - we don't know.

Playing conservatively and playing no other tactics than five drives and a kick [iare not the same thing[/i. I can believe Cunningham prefers the former (for several reasons) but you are going to have to provide significantly more evidence to prove to me that he only wants the latter.

In that scenario, the coaches would be to blame. I'm just happy you've accepted that there is a conservative style on show. Even if you are putting it down to a psychological fear that for whatever reason doesn't seem to affect most SL sides as badly as us.



For me either play more expansively our really work on our forwards game and turn it into an effective one. The longer he sticks with this current non-effective style, farcically trying to state it's similar to the saints of old, the more criticism he will take.

They would certainly bear responsibility. But I'm only speculating and there could easily be other explanations.







I don't recall saying we play anything other than conservatively. I think I've been pretty consistent over the last two seasons in saying our strength is largely based in the forwards and we play to capitalise on this fact.



Would I prefer to see us zipping the ball from flank to flank? Sure. But to do that effectively and consistently (the hallmarks of a championship side) you need the players. We DON'T HAVE those players and any gameplan which ignores this fact is likely to end in catastrophe.



Whilst it's possible to play poker and win by pretending you have cards you haven't been dealt - it doesn't work so well in team sports.

But unlike cards, you are not dealt your players. You are free to cut them loose and sign some new ones that can play the way you want. Personally I think we're trying to play like an NRL side, but have awful players and a rookie coach who is in the job as he thought it would be fun rather than because he's got any coaching ability.

I disagree completely if you think our current group of players cannot play more expansively. I'm not saying go from flank to flank, I'm just asking for an improved, more potent attacking style that doesn't result in half the ground on their phones or talking to people round them as we complete our 58th drop off of the half.

Sure you can hire players and pass up the opportunity to renew their contracts should their form dip or other factors come into play. But the timescales involved are prodigious. If the club's strategy goes belly up it can't just snap its fingers and create a new team out of thin air. Some calamities or outright blunders can take [uyears[/u to correct.



A good example is Luke Walsh. On paper he was a good signing. The kind of player you can build an entire strategy around. But put him in the wrong square foot of pitch at precisely the wrong split-second in time and your strategy breaks along with his leg.



It's easy to say [i"We should have had a contingency plan"[/i in retrospect. I'm pretty sure the club figured they could at least count on Johnny Lomax to come to the rescue (a player who got us to Old Trafford in Walsh's position). Trouble is he ended up in precisely the wrong square foot of pitch at precisely the wrong split-second in time, too.



As the saying goes ....[i the best laid plans of mice and men[/i.



Every SL club is vulnerable to being caught out in precisely the same fashion. Just because it's not apparent doesn't mean it isn't true.

I'm not sure exactly what you are disagreeing with since I don't recall ever saying we can't play better football.

Well if you now believe we actually do have the players to play better football then we agree that the coach needs to address that fact as his current style isn't getting us far.