no it was a poor quality attacking game with a clueless Souths attack and a boring St George. If it was chucking it down there would be an excuse but it wasn't and there isn't. In the modern game to have a 2-0 scoreline after 60mins tells you something!

Sutton is not a 6 and Sths need to find one if they are ever going to improve, and they need to put Wesser out to pasture, and they need to tell their very well paid pack to get stuck in!

Poor quality attack or sound defence?

The Dragons move for Boyds try good as was their first tackle play from the 20 restart.

2-0. there's defence then there's poor attack! Maybe in 1976 a 2-0 scoreline would be good defnbece, in the modern game it signifies poor attack. Dragons ahd about 6 good attacking moves in 80mins. Snoooooooze!

Is it their success you don't like JB?

Have to say, so low scoring games can be "crackers'.....that one wasn't. Still, a win is a win and I am sure that winning ugly is preferable to losing in style

NOOOOO....Say it isn't soooooooo.
You are Bazza and I want my fiver

This is a bit odd. The general consensus on LU is this was one of the best games of the season.

I certainly don't like the reasoning that if it's such a low scoring game, it has to be boring. I remember that Parra/Saints game a few years back where the score was 2-1 with just a few minutes to go. That game was awesome. Full of numerous near tries, stopped by great defence. Sounded like last night's game.

It was a good game, like I say I like St George and their tactics.

Souths matched them for 60 mins but when push came to shove Soward and Boyd produced the goods while Sutton (awful) and Wesser came up short.

why it was a poor game was the St's drive and kick tactics for 60mins of the game and Sth's total inability to create try scoring opportunities inside St's 20metres. Lost count of the number of times they lost the ball or had very poor 5th play options.