It was the sprinklers!!!!!!!

That all seems pretty fair to me. No whinging at all, in fact, he's teken it better than you would expect him to. The point about watering the pitch is a good one aswell. I wondered about that when Webb was slid into the in-goal from a few yards out in the first half.

Just done it on their Entertainers forum.

Take the blinkers off. You are one of those fans who attends a game which was a total 50:50 decided by a penalty, a horrendous mistake and a ridiculous video ref decision. Yet you come home and they next day you make out that all your players smashed ours and that we never crossed the half way line unless 'our' referee helped us over.

The truth is that for almost the entire first half the play was in Leeds' half and Saints had more than enough possession and territory to have won the game. We've known how it would go for weeks, we couldn't score enough points to win the game, but to suggest we had no possession near your line is just stupid.

His comments seem reasonable. They did make much more yardage than us with ball in hand and enjoyed some long period of territorial dominance.

We countered that by regaining ground with a sublime kicking game and fantastic defence which meant for all their metres made and territorial advantage they didn't often look like breaching the line.

I have a real complex about the pundits and experts dis-respecting us at the moment but people are looking for something that isn't there with these comments.

Whilst I don't like to be contentious, much of what you've posted above is utter, utter b[iol[/ilocks.

There was no horrendous video ref decision.


The penalty in question and probably the mistakes too are down to a combination of poor play from one side and pressure from the other.

Saints had posession and territory for the opening 30 minutes but rarely troubled the Leeds line. That isn't to say the Saints forwards didn't make good yardage or appeared in control up to that point but if you can't break the defensive line they're worth nothing, and neither does it take any account of what appeared to be the Leeds game plan up to that point and then beyond.

In fairness I simply was plagiarising Brian Carney. You know, the one Sky pundit who got it right for last night when predicting the result.

Bitterness is hardly unexpected though (although the colossal irony factor regarding the "blinkers" comment was even a lot from you - my irony meter actually registered infinity for the first time ever).

Despite the harmless nature of my posting that I put on The Entertainers forum - guess what.... it has been deleted!

Ah well, I took the bet on..

You can keep saying it till the cows come home but it doesn't make it true!

No their wasn't, both feet were behind the ball as it was kicked.

IMO Sts had and have a better basic structure to their game than Leeds. Where Leeds have a definite edge is in strike power in the outside backs. If Sts had a decent set of threequarters they could and should score a lot more points. As it is they have two error-prone wingers, neither of whom are much threat with the ball, and yesterday had a glacial centre and a rookie who showed what they could achieve with a bit of punch out wide.

I'd hope that as well as the new signings, Bluey looks at the basics of structured play, because right across the field from our own line to the opposition, we don't often look like we have a plan in a set of six.

Thats pretty conclusive to me!