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.