Could be. Or it could be 2+2=4.



Like I said, it's evidence and not proof.

Let's have a look at the exchange below.



















So you didn't type the word 'demanded', but if you were suggesting anything other than that Meli's selection on the wing was his own decision then you were going about it in an awfully strange way.

Let's look at the alternative, the one which reflects what I actually said, by way of an imaginary (but perfectly possible) conversation:



Coaches: 'Where do you feel happiest playing, Franny?'



Franny: 'On the wing'



Coaches: 'Ok then. Wing it is.'

Or it could be, Just like Mike Rush has said, That the players took a long hard look at themselves and realised they were not giving 100%. Also could it not be that with the departure of the coach, the two interim coaches decided to get back to doing things which had worked in the past. Maybe.

So I was right when I thought you'd made the whole thing up, then.

which would make it a coaching decision. I can assure you all players speak to their coach and let them know where they prefer to play it's nothing out of the ordinary

I think we can all be selective in the views that we take from time to time.



I agree that when the new set up took over, they said that they would share some ideas with senior players. However it is one thing to have an opening exchange with senior players about where they thought things were going wrong. Saying that week in week out there was going to be a coaching collective is not true.



Translating this to players getting to pick where they play is a case of fitting a statement to fit your own interpretation. The discussion that the Saints players have with Daniel Anderson was around the type of attack we employed and that we did not have the personnel for the type of play anderson originally wanted.



With Rush and KC the discussion may have been more along the lines the style of attack that Royce employed and the defensive patterns he favoured and what they felt would work better.



I think the using of more experienced pros was to redress the balance that some including Foster and Gaskell where left hanging out to dry, with confidence down effecting their games. This was something that nearly all people agreed on before Royce went even those with different views on whether Royce should have stayed, or stayed longer, or gone.



Makinson whilst not having a blitering scoring record, did not have the same frailties in his game and so that is why he has made the squad more often.



As for when we will see Gaskell or Foster again, well it's a bit early to be calling time after less than 5 matches. That's a little over a month which is nothing in terms of players coming in and out of first team squads.

Funny that since you agreed with some of what I said!





I've made up nothing, except the imaginary conversation which I did say was imaginary (that means made up, in case you aren't aware!).

All views are selective, all of the time.





And you know this how? You don't. As you said above, we can all be selective in the views we take. You have selected to choose not to believe a coaching collective exists; at present anyway, I choose to believe that it does.



People just interpret the evidence in their own way, as you said above.

I can assure you that I know that already. However, the context of all of this is not about players having a chat with the coach. It's about a coach and his assistant being sacked because some senior players were unhappy, then two totally inexperienced (at this level) people replacing that coaching staff (a situation no Saints fan would have tolerated if those replacements had not been who they are) and going on about playing the Saints way and players being happy in their rugby and all that stuff.



To properly appreciate a point, or indeed anything in life, you have to take it in its context. That is the context of this discussion which makes it different from, say, players having a chat with Daniel Anderson.

That's a joke isn't it?

And then winning 5 out of 6 games since they were put in charge after coming off the back of 5 games without a win!



Personally I think your making stuff up with the 'coaching collective' but I guess you're entitled to your opinion. Either way it appears we are better off with the way it's going now than the way it was, coaching collective or not.