I thought you bossed us for large parts of the match tonight. It was gripping stuff and probably the final scoreline didn't really reflect just how tight that match was. Both teams gave away silly penalties (and both teams got away without suffering penalities on occasion too) and we decided to lose the ball on the tryline twice, which is inconvenient for us. I think the difference lay in the ability of the teams to maintain the intensity. You fell off slightly in the last 10 but we didn't. It's what got Wakefield last night against Leeds. Leeds and Saints do seem to be the only two teams that, when on form (and we were pretty much back to form tonight after a few weeks of truly awful play), can maintain that degree of intensity for the whole 80. Either it's mental fitness or physical fitness or a bit of both, I don't know. But I really do think that fundamentally that was the difference between us. It could have gone either way for most of that match, which made it both exciting and agonising to watch! (And I only watched it on TV)

They cheered the high tackle on Graham when he was hurt so i dont see why they complain about high tackles on the dire players!

It's a Saints fan, what do you expect........

I thought you were excellent in spells and contributed to a great game, but Saints deserved tha points.

Do you disagree with that ?

And I think my comments were balanced too on the other page.

Some of us are perfectly capable of giving credit where it's due, whether we win or lose.

Now what would you have said if I hadn't have made my comment?

Warrington were good, but did they even know who our kids were before the match? If we had got beat at home and i didnt even recognise half of their team i'd be a little perplexed too!

I can form opinions based on what I see , regardless of what other fans say. I enjoyed the match , and both teams contributions to it , but am happy that Saints eventually prevailed.

The farce regarding Carvell's try was that it may have been a knock on. Result might have been a scrum down to Warrington (Stains first knock on).

That said, I think it was "right" to give it.

The ruling should have been that Carvell lost control, and as soon as it touches the ground or an opposing player, it's a knock on. However, Carvell did have the ball reefed, but managed to regain in the air. So it is one of those cloudy areas... was the ball reefed and therefore a second knock on against Saints? Or did Carvell lose control and therefore the first knock on should have been taken (which is still against Saints)?

As long as the first is adhered to, the correct response of "Play on" is fine. But like I say, it's a cloudy area. Saints fans will say it was wrong. Wire fans will say it was right. I say it was right. It damn well deserved a try.

What DIDN'T deserve tries was the number of forward passes that Saints got away with, never mind the high tackles and Pryce's interference on Carney. Professional foul, surely? Instant Sin Binning? This should have been one of those occasions where the video ref gets involved.

Never mind the vicious taking out of Grix that didn't even get PENALISED. Pryce and Wilkin doing what they always do. Dirty play and getting away with it.

Suck it up Fishface

Yeah, it's only you lot who buy up expensive foreigners and turn them crap, see King and Monaghan as prime examples

I to was disappointed with the final score and at one point thought we were going to just stand there and allow the tries to happen but unlike the Warrington of old they stuck in there.

The effort and will to win was there for all to see but you need more than that to beat St.Helens.

We play Huddersfield next week. Apart from that, you have a vaild point.