Northampton Saints - Is It Time For Change At The Top

First topic message reminder :

Saints seem to have been on the decline for the last two to three years, I know they have won a AP title but I suspect that that was just a bad year all round for AP clubs, they haven't looked convincing for at least three years. This season is the worst since they were relegated, clueless, headless chickens running around not knowing what the rest are doing, no cohesion, no tactical plan; that they can make work anyway.

Despite bringing in a host of new players, from memory; Beasley, Bennett, Brookes, Estelles, Hanrahan, Groom, Gibson, Kessel, Ma'afu, Picamoles, Ratuniyarawa, Tuala, Tuitavake only Brookes and Picamoles have established themselves as first choice, Gibson is an exception with Wood, Harrison, Clark etc. to contest the 6/7 shirt. Ma'afu and Tuala get bench spots along with Groom. They are spending fortunes on wages for players that are not getting any game time, why? Estelles was playing for Argentina on Saturday, but cant make the Saints bench, never mind the team.

Groom is well ahead of Dickson these days, but still plays second fiddle, Burrell is a much better 13 than 12 and ahead of Pisi, PH is a much better 12 than Burrell, but we still get the old formation of Burrell and Pisi.

Long term injuries to Clark, Stephenson, Foden haven't helped but they are not at the heart of the problem.

The management seems to have a mistrust of youth, Mallinder junior seems to have a problem getting into the side, with his father preferring the stodge of Burrell and Pisi, despite the world and his dog believing PH is the next best thing to sliced bread. Where is the next Alex Waller, Prince Harry, Teimana Harrison coming from, despite massive injury problems and international call ups we still do not play any of the younger Senior Academy players, preferring to play Patterson at 6 to say Bennett or Ludlam. The lack of energy and cohesion showed and we got what we deserved against the 3rd worst side in the premiership ( Bristol, then us on that performance and Falcons). Is it that the younger players just are just not good enough, if not, why do we retain them. If they are but have yet to fulfil their promise, put the money wasted on players that do not play into developing the youth into the players they believe them capable of being. Players like Alex Moon are potential monsters for Saints in the future, but do not seem to be getting the development chances they deserve

Since the sacking of King, the backs have looked lost and clueless, why sack someone you have no replacement for, sounds very much like JM is trying to shift the blame away from where it belongs. He picks the sides and directs how he wants the game to be played and his thinking has been muddled at best, very much on the lines of Bomber Lancaster I think he has taken the side as far as he can. The game he wants to play is old fashioned, the modern game has moved on and he has failed to move with it; see Eddie Jones England or Ireland's style of play.

The thing I find ridiculous is that Saints used to play that AB style game, the forwards were streets ahead of most sides when it came to ball handling skills, all players fitted into the line seamlessly. The likes of the Waller brothers, Lawes, Day, Dickinson, Haywood, all could match the backs on ball handling and still do the hard grind in the pack. We just don't use these skills anymore.

Am I the only one who feels like this?

Scottrf wrote:The Barwells have no influence on the board. That's the problem. None of them have a clue.

Isn't Keith still on the board?  Besides, he is still the most influential person in the organisation.  I do think pushing Mallinder out now without an able replacement makes no sense.  But the search must start now.  Maybe it takes the rest of the season, and in in off chance Jim somehow gets control of the club again, then he stays.  But the chances are low, and likely he has run his course with the team. And, let's not forget, he was terrific for this club for a decade.

“Things do occur, but they’re happening too much to us. It’s ridiculous, all that’s gone on.”

He's on the board but he stepped back because of his health.

Scottrf wrote:He's on the board but he stepped back because of his health.

I didn't know he stepped back formally. I know he was not in great shape.

Another thought, and not a great one.  The Pat Lam deal at Bristol probably just drove up the market for any top level coach who might be looking for a position.  At least the Saints job is still considered one of the most attractive in club Rugby.

doctor_grey wrote:Another thought, and not a great one.  The Pat Lam deal at Bristol probably just drove up the market for any top level coach who might be looking for a position.  At least the Saints job is still considered one of the most attractive in club Rugby.

Well until the Tigers job becomes up for Grabs.

The thing is Bristol needed to pay big to attract someone. The chances are it's going to be a long term appointment and a slog with no chance of HEC rugby and probably no AP rugby in the first season. Saints and Tigers will offer much beer positions and squads to work with initially.

formerly known as Sam wrote:The thing is Bristol needed to pay big to attract someone. The chances are it's going to be a long term appointment and a slog with no chance of HEC rugby and probably no AP rugby in the first season. Saints and Tigers will offer much beer positions and squads to work with initially.

I know rugby has drinking culture but what are these beer positions you talk of

Decent article in today's Guardian. Yet, doesn't dig deep enough to really get at the heart of the problems. I presume it is because no one really wants to face exactly what they are.

Saints need 3 more wins to avoid relegation. Flashback to about 10 years ago. Seriously not good.

On the rare plus side, it seems Ben Foden is becoming a more frequent, and virtually only, commentator regarding how the players are feeling. He is a pro's pro in all things. He also knows exactly how far he can go with his comments to the press. But reading between the lines is bad juju.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2016/dec/16/northampton-saints-george-north-dylan-hartley-winter-discontent

I like the 'Winter of Discontent' line. I wonder where they got it from..........

broadlandboy wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:The thing is Bristol needed to pay big to attract someone. The chances are it's going to be a long term appointment and a slog with no chance of HEC rugby and probably no AP rugby in the first season. Saints and Tigers will offer much beer positions and squads to work with initially.

I know rugby has drinking culture but what are these beer positions you talk of

Surely the big clubs follow the amateur club traditions of appointing a social secretary.

geoff999rugby wrote:

Hood83 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Set piece is still very good.

True

There scrum was completely and utterly destroyed by Leinster

Never seen Waller go backwards so fast - mind you Furlong is rather good

Might have a lot to do with having Paterson behind him, he is 2 stone too light to play at 4.

I think Mallinder will be looking for a new job very soon.

Hopefully West and Mallinder stay.

Welly wrote: Hopefully West and Mallinder stay.

Even as a Tigers fan I don't like to see Northampton concede 60 points to anybody, unless it's us. Not a good place for English rugby to be.

Mallinder will be lucky to make Tuesday.

It is simply unacceptable to give up 100 points over just two games. Never saw this coming at the beginning of the season.

Even against one of the top european sides when they are in great form?

yes.

TJ wrote:Even against one of the top european sides when they are in great form?

There's no shame in losing. There is in getting humped home and away in back to back games. Saints are a big team in their own right and have the resources to offer better resistance.

have you played Sarries this season? the only english team who could challenge Leinster I would have said.

That's a Leinster team playing with a third choice fly half.

Mallinder is a dinosaur I'm afraid. Leinster are a great team, but it's shocking how far ahead they are of a team that was really challenging them not long ago. Saints have gone backwards, it's not good for English rugby, they need to get rid of the coaching set up and get someone in who understands how rugby has moved on.

Hood83 wrote:Mallinder is a dinosaur I'm afraid. Leinster are a great team, but it's shocking how far ahead they are of a team that was really challenging them not long ago. Saints have gone backwards, it's not good for English rugby, they need to get rid of the coaching set up and get someone in who understands how rugby has moved on.

And talent.  Up and down the roster, there has been no improvement. Many of the current players are not at the level of their predecessors or, if the same players, are equal or not quite as good as before.  Tom Wood and Courtney Lawes excluded.

I think "rugby has moved on" is the key.   The best pro 12 teams are playing with a speed and attacking intent that is not matched in England or France  I've seen this coming for a while and had a few debates with folk on here about it.  I seem to remember seeing stats showing the ball is in play more in an average pro 12 game than in the AP.  Pace and guile is beginning to be more important than power and weight.

Its not so much Saints have gone backwards, its the pro 12 teams have moved on and left them behind

I'm afraid a lot of it is saints are going backwards tj. They have better players than these results suggest and for years, even when winning the prem, mallinder got less than the sum of its parts.

That said it's only saracens and wasps who will challenge this year.

Wasps will only challenge if they can get over this injury crisis. 

Agree on the point about speed and agility becoming as important as power but it's also the expected skill levels. Now there's an expectation that the whole team has good footballing skills, Saints don't have that.

Saints are trying to play a game that doesn't suit the players they have, we have skilful forwards that can play the running game, we have backs that can play that game, Myler maybe isn't the greatest at it, but he can play it.

It is the game plan that is completely wrong, it doesn't suit the players at Mallinder's disposal and it doesn't suit the way the current game is played.

Doc, I think you could add Picamoles and Mallinder jnr. your exclusion.

Agree with most on here, Jim's days have got to be numbered.

Saints don't seem to have hired well and stuck with players who in today's premiership are average. On paper they look mid table at best. There is a stubborn culture which in good times works well, but when things turn, it prevents you doing the right things. Saints need a change of leadership quickly. Yesterday's humiliation was wholly predictable and unacceptable.

More problems.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/38356283

So saints could face some some sort of disciplinary action because they tested 3-4 core players ? Did I get that right ?

It is frankly ridiculous that any tournament organiser should have any say in the selection of teams. The competition itself should be the incentive for sides to field the quality of player required and if they don't that implies the competition framework needs changed.
Teams shouldn't have to justify their line-ups to anyone but themselves. They are the only ones who know the best players to execute their intended gameplan, the extent of players niggles and maybe who is in and out of form. Adjudication on what is a "weakened" side is impossible so the ERCC chiefs need to think carefully before pressing the big red button labelled 'DO NOT PRESS'!

Didn't sale have a similar issue with the prem a couple seasons back

And I think a French team faced similar accusations in an European competition in the past too?

Maybe?

Anyone else remember?

The Great Aukster wrote:It is frankly ridiculous that any tournament organiser should have any say in the selection of teams. The competition itself should be the incentive for sides to field the quality of player required and if they don't that implies the competition framework needs changed.
Teams shouldn't have to justify their line-ups to anyone but themselves. They are the only ones who know the best players to execute their intended gameplan, the extent of players niggles and maybe who is in and out of form. Adjudication on what is a "weakened" side is impossible so the ERCC chiefs need to think carefully before pressing the big red button labelled 'DO NOT PRESS'!

Everyone knows to never, ever press a Big Red Button (maybe that's Saints problem).  

Saints to be investigated for resting some players?  As recently as a few years ago when resting players ('weakened line-ups') was fairly common with clubs out of contention in their respective pools, Saints would never do it.  And came away with a few unexpected wins.  It has been a matter of pride at the club to keep fighting the fight.  Almost every club did this at one time or another, especially our Gallic partners.  But, it will be hard to prove in a black and white world, players were simply being rotated, and the Internationals had niggles requiring rest...........  

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:Saints are trying to play a game that doesn't suit the players they have, we have skilful forwards that can play the running game, we have backs that can play that game, Myler maybe isn't the greatest at it, but he can play it.

It is the game plan that is completely wrong, it doesn't suit the players at Mallinder's disposal and it doesn't suit the way the current game is played.

Doc, I think you could add Picamoles and Mallinder jnr. your exclusion.  

Agree with most on here, Jim's days have got to be numbered.

Agree, totally missed on both of those.  I actually think a few of the younger guys - who need more game time, not less - could benefit here.  Picamoles has been fantastic.

Fining clubs for fielding weakened teams happens a lot in English football.

https://www.google.co.jp/search?q=fined+for+fielding+weakened+team

Bullschidt to the idea of forcing a Team to name players virtually given to them by any damn Competition organisation.

Not only is it Game-Console Childish logic ('lets pick all the best players just coz we can and it'll be fun to play with them') - it's also idiotic strategy logic as both Contests (League and then Europe) inform each other.  
In order to get into Europe in the first place, you have to do well in League.  So you have the scenario that in order to have a chance in Europe (highest competition) you have to be very selective in choosing when to play your best players in your League and when to play them in Europe.  No team has an unlimited supply of Best Players.  They are a finite resource that must be manipulated through a season by a coach to get the best outcome he can from that season.

No Competition organiser should interfere with a Coach as he tries to balance those issues - and no Competition organiser should have the ability to demand that a coach or team prioritises one competition over another.  That's for the team and coach to decide.

TJ wrote:I think "rugby has moved on" is the key.   The best pro 12 teams are playing with a speed and attacking intent that is not matched in England or France  I've seen this coming for a while and had a few debates with folk on here about it.  I seem to remember seeing stats showing the ball is in play more in an average pro 12 game than in the AP.  Pace and guile is beginning to be more important than power and weight.

Its not so much Saints have gone backwards, its the pro 12 teams have moved on and left them behind

I think certainly Leinster, Connacht and Glasgow have developed a style that is more dynamic, aggressive, and as you say, dependent on high skill levels and very good fitness, and to a slightly lesser extent Munster and Ulster. Given the Irish team also seems to play that way the consistency probably all helps.

I actually think there's a place for the huge pack, attritional game approach. I don't think it's just been supplanted by this high octane game, it's just that teams are not doing it very well. Saints are still playing as if they have a huge bullying pack when they no longer have the players. Kruger and Manoa, Tiny, even players like Downey, have not been replaced with like for like. You can't steamroll teams with Waller, Haywood, Paterson, Wood and Harrison. When you combine that lack of a platform with moving the ball extremely slowly through the backs, far slower than the Irish teams in particular, you've got no chance.

I think the only English team playing a similar game to the Irish and Glasgow was the Wasps team of last year. I'm a little worried even they're going backwards though. You can see they've muscled up in the pack, but the speed of movement through the backs against Connacht was poor, and they looked very static. I hope they haven't sacrificed their deep running game for a power-pack one. But that sort of brings me back to my belief that the bullying pack approach can work providing there is patience and accuracy. Wasps had a couple of passages of punching it up the middle. It took an age to get going and they eventually knocked on, but with better accuracy you could see it working against smaller packs. Saints can't do this. They look an awful team at the moment.

SecretFly wrote:Bullschidt to the idea of forcing a Team to name players...

Don't think it's a binary choice between giving teams a free hand or dictating team sheets. You want all competitors to respect a competition.

Welly wrote:Didn't sale have a similar issue with the prem a couple seasons back

Didn't they field an entire EQ 23 in order to maintain the average EQ numbers and get the bonus from the RFU?

Hood, that was a Wasps team missing Cipriani, Eastmond and Daly from the backline. No Haskell and Symons up front. That's some serious firepower missing from their 23.

Rugby Fan wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Bullschidt to the idea of forcing a Team to name players...

Don't think it's a binary choice between giving teams a free hand or dictating team sheets. You want all competitors to respect a competition.

You respect any competition (and most/all teams are in two competitions per season) by simply plotting out a team season and strategizing to get the best out of that season that you can.  Sometimes that will mean that eyes have to turn back to League.  No team that is trying to make the most of a year is going to sacrifice their League position (the very route to Top Europe Competition) just to keep plugging away as hard as they can in Europe.  It's a year long process of finding balance.  No one competition has the right to seek more effort in one contest at the expense of the other.  That's a coaching/team choice.

SecretFly wrote:...No one competition has the right to seek more effort in one contest at the expense of the other...

Nor should any competition expect a team to bail on their responsibility to compete.

Rugby Fan, if the competition organisers wants to imply that balancing a team through a season amounts to Cheating - then let them go for it. But let them have the courage of their convictions and word it so. At least then the team that is being accused can take legal action to punish the implication.

There is no way around it - the team and coach plots out their season. That means they have to balance their resources as best they can.

SF, if you make a choice that a Malaysian betting syndicate would have happily paid you to make, then that's probably not a good choice for the game.

Rugby can't pretend that drugs, bribery and collusion will never be threats to the sport, so there are broader obligations to meet.

Rugby Fan wrote:SF, if you make a choice that a Malaysian betting syndicate would have happily paid you to make, then that's probably not a good choice for the game.

Rugby can't pretend that drugs, bribery and collusion will never be threats to the sport, so there are broader obligations to meet.

Exactly. There is ample room for corrupt individuals or groups to use sport (rugby too) to cheat and try to gain advantage (monetary). Wouldn't disagree with that at all. We all know it's possible in sport and we all assume that there is a high degree of probability that it often happens in a calendar year.
That's why the right words have to be used; and if the organisers feel a team selection was used for corrupt purposes then do the investigations and make the accusations. But you can't give a team their team sheet when mostly - mostly - the reasons for making changes to a team are innocent and designed to gain maximum advantage to a team over a season.

SecretFly wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:SF, if you make a choice that a Malaysian betting syndicate would have happily paid you to make, then that's probably not a good choice for the game.

Rugby can't pretend that drugs, bribery and collusion will never be threats to the sport, so there are broader obligations to meet.

Exactly.  There is ample room for corrupt individuals or groups to use sport (rugby too) to cheat and try to gain advantage (monetary).  Wouldn't disagree with that at all.  We all know it's possible in sport and we all assume that there is a high degree of probability that it often happens in a calendar year.
That's why the right words have to be used; and if the organisers feel a team selection was used for corrupt purposes then do the investigations and make the accusations.  But you can't give a team their team sheet when mostly - mostly - the reasons for making changes to a team are innocent and designed to gain maximum advantage to a team over a season.

I disagree with you. Teams in elite European competition expect to compete on several fronts. Top teams have the squads they think will do the job deep into the season. Saints look like they bailed before I've even put up my Christmas tree. They aren't balancing stretched resources, because we aren't far enough into the season for that to be a genuine issue.

That's your opinion, RF... I mean on them doing things for other reasons than working on their resources as they see fit.

So why did they 'give up' on Europe? What's the real reasons?

You can't really throw the book at Northampton when French teams have been fielding weakened sides for years. The parameters under which a team can be sanctioned must be set out at the beginning of the season.

If that is done then I think by all means punish any team who won't compete. This competition is supposed to be feature the best teams in Europe, not teams who are happy to collect the tv pot money and home gate receipts while not doing their best to add to the quality of product.

The competition only has itself to blame if it can't incentivise teams to remain interested, (say through prize money or ranking points). The team sheet could read like a whos who of rugby but if they're not motivated to put their bodies on the line they could still lose bigger than an academy team.
The competition organisers are naive if they think teams with nothing to play for will play for nothing.

Not the comps fault Northampton suck! Don't think what the organisers do will matter , surely the fans will be the ones who will kick up a stink

Not even sure there is a rule saying you can't pick players that you have registered for the competition but even if there was clubs would have been punished before now.

Maybe the organsiers will reduce the number of registered players to preserve the quality?

Saints still look poopie.