Wigan do certainly look good i must admit as do Wire again. As for Saints we were shocking early doors last year with defeats at home (widnes ) against Quinns. "Youre gonna miss Cunningham"was the thread last year. Now after one defeat "youre gonna miss Jammer" is this years thread. Dont get me wrong Jammer is a huge loss not only for work rate but leadership skills aswell. However, squad as a whole is much more experienced than year with likes of Gaskell, Lomax, Makinson having more game time under the belt. Add to that the experience Hohia, LaFrannchi will bring only a fool would write saints off again. Wigan and Wire may set the bench mark again but we wont be a million miles away come business end of season.

When Saints lost Long people though they would struggle, only for Eastmond and now more recently Lomax and Gaskell to come and fill that void. As you say the same was said about missing Cunningham only for Roby to prove that he could fill that role with ease.

I think the only issue this time around with losing Graham is whether there is anyone at the club who can replace him. I don't know who is expected to fill the gap but there isn't a prop in the Saints side that really stands out as being a like for like replacement and I don't think any other area of the squad has been strengthened significantly either. That would be the one worry I'd have if I was a Saints fan, but it's early doors and there is always a chance that the whole team improves as a whole to offset the loss of Graham.

It seems to me that prop forward isn't really an area that Saints are producing quality players in. Where Wigan have brought through Mossop in the last few years and have two more great prospects in Spencer and Burke I'm not sure who Saints have that will come through and make a mark. The last Saints prop I saw who I thought had a fair bit of potential was Emmitt and from what I've seen of him he could have easily played a part at Saints had he remained at the club.

Players, teams, coaches etc. will not be scared of playing us... but the fans have feared facing us since 2010. We are one of the teams to beat, if not 'the' team to beat.

I would be lying if I was to claim I didn't fear playing Warrington, Saints, Hudds etc. they are the top teams. That fear of losing is what makes winning those games so special.

I think that you definitely had that tag as the 'feared team' in 2010 when you was playing some good rugby, but that for me has gone out the window since last season. Every team aspires to be the 'feared team' but I wouldn't say as a Saints fan that I feared Wigan more than or any less than I'd fear Warrington as I fear playing both teams.

As for the mentions of James Graham - he hasn't been replaced as there was nobody available. As for the comment that we don't produce good front rowers I'd say that I would agree with you. A few has been promoted to the first team squad this season but they have not come soon enough

Just to quote Bilko from his great match report " Warrington perhaps proved last season, that putting the effort in to totally annihilate teams is not totally necessary?"
It raises so many questions, for me do we have the strike players coming from the bench to finnish teams off? like Sam Panapa used to do, the Wigan of 2010 didn't have that, yet still won the Grand Final. We have the bulk but does that put the fear in teams? Does that win a match before its kicked off? Or do the impact players demoralise a team? I think Leeds won last years Grand Final because of the history AND they were playing good rugby.

Also, like others have suggested, the bigger problem is if Wigan & Wolves etc annihilate teams what does it prove? Yes there are weak teams but thats for another discussion.... its still a great sport.

Firstly, I'm happy to see that a "development" team like the Catalans have earned the respect now that they are a team to be brought into the reckoning for a place in the Big Four (or however many we have now). The history of rugby league in the South of France is fascinating and a lesson in how pride and spirit can overcome great odds.

Secondly, I give total respect to Saints for the way they have rebuilt their squad over the last few years without dropping out of the top few teams, I'd love them to have gone down the gurgler but they haven't and I wish we had managed change as well as them.

Thirdly, yes - we are a team to be feared this year. But only much more time will tell whether that translates into the kind of long-term form and solidity that wins trophies.

But, by heck, I'm excited for what lies in front of us.

now this is where i have to interject, fans from other teams (i can only speak for the people i know) look forward to playing wigan. I have an expectation that my team will beat wigan 2 out of 3 occasions we meet, there's none of the fear that was arround in the 90's where going to wigan could result in having your backside well and truly smacked, those days are over. wigan are just another top 6 side, in order to beat them you have to play well. the same could be said about all the other top 6!
so to stop rambling and summarise, no we don't fear playing you, no your not "the team to beat" as you point out your one of the teams to beat. anything else makes you look a little delusional/arrogant/silly*

*delete as appropriate

(your insight into other fans is somewhat lacking )

valid point, your right, however i think what i was trying to say was that i fear losing to every team. wigan are not feared any more or any less than any other team in my book. the OP tried to make it out that they are. our 3 trophies in 3 years makes your sugestion invalid along with leeds' sucess last year and the entire superleague era, saints' 5 finals in a row (all losing i know but still an achievement) kind of give me the impression that the balance of power is spread a little more thinly than say in the 90's when you were a team to be feared.
please don't thimk i'm trying to score points i'm just trying to have a debate about wigan and the fact they are no where near as dominant as they used to be, which is what i thought the OP was infering to some degree.

And therein lies the point. I saw no such inference in the OP's question. Thats your view of the question, which was about the here and now, nothing to do with the past.

And you know the difference between inferring and implying!

Lordy, its too early for the grammar police...