I sometimes feel that some of the Sky commentators have it in for Salford, yesterday they all had it in for them and quite rightly it was embarrassing. But for me the comment that summed Salford up came from Jon Wells in his half time summary when he said.....

[iIf you have nothing positive to say at all it's best to say nothing, so .... moving on to Wakefield.

[/i

Beaten 32-30.

I know we were bad, but they were revelling in it last night and seemed to take a sort of sneering delight in how bad we were. Phil Clarke was the only one who seemed to point out that we were capable of performing better than the horror show that was served up.

I though Carney was trying his hardest to put salford in a good light. However what else do people expect the sky team to say when we turn up and perform like that!?

I was embarrassed to be a salford fan last night.

We were bad and you can't blame Sky saying what they did but it always seems to me that they enjoy talking bad about Salford. We were poor, fine. St Helens went through a bad patch and Widnes are walked over week in week out but Sky don't say those kind of things about them. They seem to enjoy us failing and that's what annoys me more than anything.

One of the comments when Nero scored his try was something like "It could easily have been 6 points to Wakefield..." What is that supposed to mean!?!?! We were in possession and attacking, how the hell could it have been 6 points to Wakefield! It's stupid comments like that that make no sense which just shows they are willing Salford to fail most of the time.

I hated the commentary on Sky almost as much as I hated watching our performance

Why is it there's never a grey area in sight on here? (or the Facebook group for that matter).

Did it escape everyone that Howarth still couldn't pass, our pack was still to lightweight and Patten, for all his attacking gifts, can look suspect on the back foot?

Did nobody realise that the whole 'Barton Globetrotters' thing was borne partly out of necessity as we simply don't have a Super League-standard pack (ie, we can't go through most teams so we have to go at around them).

I'll accept that we looked as though we weren't trying for the first 40 minutes. But the big difference in the second half was that the 'hail Mary' balls that were sticking when we were winning and had a bit more confidence were ending up on the floor; the lack of a proper pack also means that when the expansive game doesn't work we don't have a 'route one' option.

The reality is, we've punched above our weight a few times this season (mainly due to Long's input and the bit of class we have out wide IMO) but to compete consistently you need a dominant pack, and dominant packs cost money.

Agree..I hate listening to Tweedle Dumb and Tweedle Dumber


The other week we were watching a game and for some reason the commentary didnt work,all you could hear was the crowd noise for the full 80 minutes.It was miles better!!!!

The first half performance has got to be one of our worst in recent history. 22-6 down with Wakey bombing another 3 certain tries. We only had one play the ball within 40m of their tryline in the entire first half.

after leading for most of the match and then conceding 3 poor tries in the last 20.

I'm gobsmacked, I thought Patten was your best player and dragged you back into the game - well we all see it differently I suppose.

Patten is class. Sadly he seems to be the scapegoat for many, probably because he is our most high profile player.

No shame there, our under 20's are very good and they won't play worse than that all season - could possibly win the title.