Don’t often hear what Mr Clarke has to say about Leeds TBH but I’ve always thought he’s not a bad summariser (albeit being heavily Wigan bias)

It’s Tweedle Dumb and Tweedle Dumber who fill the commentary with inane ramblings and need replacing ASAP.

I think a lot of the stuff last year was because Saints had been the best side for most of last season certainly from the point of view of quality and consistency of rugby. I don;t think anyone was bias, just maybe sad that the best team did now win on the day, although Leeds were clearly the best performers on the day

Most of last season? Sure they finished the regular rounds on top, and had played the best rugby in the closing couple of months, but everybody appeared to have forgotten our start to the season, where we were just as dominant as Saints were towards the end.

In results yes, but I always was impressed when I saw Saints play, and was often less than impressed when I saw us play. Although this could have been inverse rose tinting going on

Phil Clarke has a rule to decide the best team and that is to look at the points for and points against.

When St Helens have the best attack and best defence (2006, 2007) then St Helens are the best team. When St Helens have the best attack but not the best defence (200icon_cool.gif then St Helens are the best team. When St Helens have neither the best attack or best defence (2005) then St Helens are the best team.

Simples.

Amen brother.