I'm guessing it's a mixture of all three tbh. Like I said it seems as though he's being instructed to avoid collisions rather than deliberately, but he definitely looks hesitant. We all know he's never been afraid to take on the line in the past so it's very likely the injury is still in the back of his mind.

Banter aside, does anyone seriously believe Wane condones the cannonball tackle? but then again, given that you think it deserves to banned, you're probably confusing it with the 3rd man coming in to wrap up the legs, which is NOT a cannonball

Of course not, it's still only recently that he came back from his knee injury, which he's still clearly not fully recovered from and/or not completely confident to test out. I'm still hopeful we may see the Sam of 2012 again.

Up until the Saints game I thought Sam Tomkins come back had gone extremely well. Yes he's a different type of player to the one who burst on the scene but he was far more effective in other ways. He then gets an injury against Wakey, misses a week and since coming back he doesn't look quite right.



It simply screams to me that he's carrying that injury. His concentration has looked poor as though his mind is elsewhere.

I hope that he has a good pre season and next year we will see a more confident ST.

I'm wth you until his injury this season he absolutely improved us as a team.

Hopefully he just needs time and a bit of tlc.

A top class rugby player who we need in the future to turn things around.

Yes. Badly. I think it's starting to look like a longer-odds bet, though.

Whilst I agree that we lacked any kind of creativity, we were also missing quite a few strike players. The likes of Gelling and Joel can create things out wide, whilst Farrell is an attacking threat also. Throw in Josh and you've got four international strike players that were missing. Of course that doesn't excuse our lack of spark close to the line but in a SC sport must surely be taken into account?

In relation to our attack or lack of I actually don't have a problem with "the move" every team in the world does it more of less with varying degrees of success. On the back of go forward and quick play the balls it does generate all kinds of problems as every runner is an option runner which should cause all kids of doubt in an under pressure defence.



We however do something different which sees "the move" as very easy to counter. We fail to earn the right to put it on. We simply put it on after a couple of basic 1 out drives with no forward momentum. The defences we are putting it against because of our poor build up are nearly always set and organised.



If we had a few more ideas around the ruck, and a few more bodies in motion on the tackles leading up to the set up then it would have far more positive results. Lining it up against an organised set defence who are not on the back foot renders it totally ineffective.

What has happened to the execution of set plays. It was never this bad.



So many bad passes or dropped balls all season.

In order top do what you suggest we are crying out for some creativity/flair at hooker - something we have not had since Riddel left, neither Powell or MM offer that. Someone to get the opposition on the back foot - even Higham offered that with his scoots from dummy half. Now - nothing just a sloppy, slow loopy pass to the next player in the line.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who isn't impressed with our dummy half play. Neither MM or Powell offer quick ball or a running option from the play the ball, easy to read and slows down everything we do after. MM brings aggression, Powell brings effort, work rate and good defence, neither bring any real creativity.

I wonder if that's because they haven't got it or because they're not allowed to show it.



I think it's as much the latter as anything. Our dummy half is simply expected to get a decent pass away to start our 'move'. If they decide to run it or try something a bit different that goes away from the plan.