I'm sure the same "let's wait until the end of year to evaluate" thinking would apply if Wigan were 4 from 4 and we were on only 3 points from 8 having thrown away two big leads

Like the OP is pointing out, nobody is actually saying we're great and we're going to win the title, just highlighting some good attacking stats......and why not?

How often did we win games last year yet posters complained that they weren't enjoying watching us because the games were dull or that our attack was painful to watch? When we won in 2011 & 2012 the argument was about not getting value for money during attending league games especially in the first half of those campaigns.....now (whilst still early days) it's "well let's wait and see what the final result is at the end of the year".

my point is we have played 4 games against average sides. whilst I am very encouraged by what I've seen, first half against hull and odd spell against Huddersfield apart, imo we'll have a better idea by easter having played some of the more fancied sides.

Well of course we should not be doing cartwheels down the road after just 4 games however we are top of the table having won all 4 games. Meanwhile one of our biggest competitors (Wigan) have only won 1 out of 4 having lost to one and drawn with another of the same average sides that we have beaten. While another of our top 4 competitors (Warrington) only beat Hull by 1 point and had to come from behind to beat Hull KR by less points than Leeds. Also one of your average sides you had tipped to finish higher that Leeds. So look on the bright side Tad

always do! Huddersfield I fancied to do well. however given their performances so far they have looked average. like I said I am encouraged, just not going over the top after 4 games. last season started rather well too I seem to remember

Our attacking structures looked good early season last year also, in our first 10 or 11 games we racked up some serious numbers. Our defence looked much better last year early on as well - we are too easy to score against at the moment. Hardaker was linking well with Watkins on the right and Briscoe started well (so did BJB - all on the right). Our attack gradually fell apart, and players reverted to the previous style as the pressure mounted and we had to make changes to our starting 13 due to injuries and Hardakers suspension. Aiton's illness was pivotal as it meant Burrow became our only hooking option and it simply didn't work when he started there.

I think a lot of the "excitement" is based on us beating Hudds (finally). But they hadn't won a game and gave us 18 points start at home and we still had to squeak it after conceding some of the softest scores you'll ever see. Hull were hopeless in the second half last week - they crumbled as soon as we scored. If we'd managed a score or two in the first half it could have been a serious massacre.

Happy we've won all four. Saints have managed to benefit from ineptitude of the highest order from officials and teams they have played against. Maybe that's their secret, they have the ability to make the opposition forget how to play rugby and officials to forget how to award penalties and tries to their opponents.

It's hard not to feel encouraged about the 2nd half showing at Hull. Not getting too carried away though. Seven tries against a defence lacking application means little; against a more committed team maybe two or three would be a more realistic expectation. Not necessarily enough for a win - unless that quality in attack can be brought to bear in both halves.