The colour of the players hair had nothing to do with it.


I hate the whinos just as much as the rest BUT on this one I say well done for having the balls to do this.

Woahhh - silly hair is the same as silly tashes. Didn't see many on here complaining when our players did the tash thing a few years back.

Bog all to do with their hair, they did a Wigan! Thought Saints would be a walk in the park as we did with Widnes.

Only lesson here is to respect the opposition.

Finally a Pie Eater who understands RL. I don't think Leeds have ever won SL without being slaughtered at St Helens at some stage during the season. They definitely stuck 40+ on us in 2004 and maybe it was only 38 in 2009. It's not unusual. Leeds were dismal last night but to blame it on half an hour spent at the barbers on Thursday last week is typical Stevo - as McDermott said, he neither doesn't understand, or has forgotten, about professional Rugby League. Saints were up for it, Leeds looked like they'd spent the day sunbathing and just woken up for the game. End of story.

Intriguing thoughts - would love to know the logic-defying reasoning behind them. Leeds' senior players are probably amongst the most respected in the sport.

On a happier note, its good to hear that the move from Knowsley Hole to the Lily Langtree Memorial stadium hasn't effected the Saints fans ability to spot forward passes.




p.s. does anyone know if the roof will be open or closed on Good Friday ?

Depends on the weather, literally.

Are McDermott and Peacock protesting too much? If it was Saints players and staff coming out saying it was disrespectful to them then maybe.
But for Stevo and Eddie to call the likes of Peacock and Sinfield unprofessional when they spend half a game arguing between themselves instead of calling the match you can kind of see why you wouldn't accept character slurs from them.

If there's more than a light breeze I suggest we all take hard hats, just in case.

I don't think the clown hats the Leeds players wore yesterday would suffice.

We missed one and look what happened so did the ref. We are there to provide a public service. The head of refs won't pay for glasses, so we provide Saints-O-Vision. A helpful handy aid for the struggling ref to call the game the right way.

As for the roof, if it's like the weather today. It will show off the stadium in all it's glory 3pm bathing in the sunshine on the lawns outside the stadium, a bit of tag rugby and a pop into the Founders Bar. To then enjoy ice cold bear in the warm sunshine. And that's before you even get inside.

It's a real summer venue with the space outside. If the numbers hold up I can see the remaining 2 corners being filled and cladding for the north stand to help those with an aversion to bringing a coat on a less than climent day of weather.

It's not like the four poster grounds offer much wind protection either.

Hmmm. That makes it okay then.

If I was a Leeds fan I think I'd rather indulge in the fantasy that we lost because 'we got carried away with a charitable idea' than in the truly ridiculous but somehow less noble notion that 'we can only win SL if St Helens massacre us at some point'.

Which is the dafter of these two excuses? My understanding of RL clearly doesn't extend to the point where I can make a judgement.

end of the day Saint Helens players decided to play for the first time this year. Leeds hairdo motivated them? it was, the motivation came from all the critism that they have recieved this week and whoever was the opposition, whatever the hair style Saints were always going to hammer them in the first 20 minutes.

It will be interseting the next two fixtures for them. Will they be able to lift themselves for three big matches on bounce?

I'm not arguing that Leeds getting carried away by the charity caused the result. Have a watch of that game back-to-back with the World Club Challenge though, and try telling me that Leeds were anywhere near as motivated against Sts as they were against Manly. Leeds may not have won (especially with four players out), but 40+ points? I somehow doubt it.

I'm starting to get annoyed with SL sides shipping in shedloads of points because they just don't play hard for 80 minutes, and those same results being used as 'proof' that team X (in this case Sts) are somehow unbeatable/amazing. How often do we hear 'nobody could have lived with them' type nonsense after Wigan/ Warrington/ Sts/ Leeds (delete as appropriate) smash someone?

I have never, ever seen a 40+ points scoreline between two reasonably matched on paper sides (which Leeds and Sts were on Sunday) where the result hasn't been half down to one team playing well, and half down to the other playing badly. That includes when Leeds have smashed top teams as well.

Are you selling polar[i bears [/inow ?, are they on a stick or in a giant cone ?

werent the Leeds guys doing something for charity with their performance the other day?

Stains being the charity case in question

i think the hair do's were daft. I wouldnt say they were responsible for the loss but are you telling me that not one leeds player had a little s to himself as they warmed up/ran out and heard the crowd reaction? even if the leeds players only had a 'this is a laugh isnt it?' type conversation its something that shouldnt have happened as it takes the focus off the job in hand - the job they are paid to do.

to say the red hair meant they got battered is stupid (stand up stevo) but to say it had no impact on the focus of the leeds players (and only 1 player needs to lose focus to have an impact) is also naive.