Are Leeds the new St Helens in that, as far as Sky are concerned, they now can't give a less-than-exceptional performance?

At the start of the season we saw Leeds make an opening win over Hull look a lot more impressive than it actually was by running away with it in the last 20 minutes, Hull having given them quite a tough tussle up until then - and yet afterwards were treated to ludicrously exaggerated accounts of how good the Loiners had been by Messrs Hemmings and Stephenson. Last week we got a similar one sided version of Leeds's scrappy win over a rank-poor Catalan team. Last night, we saw our favourite muppets gloss over one of the tries of the season because they were too busy heaping superlatives on a Leeds team which, despite dominating territory in the match, only managed to win by about 8 points. We also heard Eddie boasting about how Leeds had gone through the Easter period without defeat (even though they only drew with arch-rivals Bradford).

I'm not saying Leeds haven't deserved these victories, but where is all this one-sided gibberish coming from? What's the purpose of deliberate and continued misrepresentation? Is it a kind of clumsy Sky Sports fightback against accusations that the current method for selecting our champions is flawed? Are they maybe trying to force us to accept that 'the Champions' - as they never cease to remind us - are unquestionably worthy of that title and that the current play-off system is sound?

I was also going to ask how far along this embarrassing road these guys can actually travel, but then I remembered their weekly cannonisation of Keiron Cunningham, usually for delivering straightforward passes from dummy-half, and I realise that there is still plenty of mileage for them yet.

I had Dave Woods and Ian Millward for commentary over the tv pictures. Whatever you think of Millward, it is sheer bliss to just have two men to listen to. One who simply commentates and one who simply summarises. Thats how Sky coverage should be, but isn't....and thus is amateur!

There are times during the commentary when I seriously believe that Stevo doesn't know the laws of the game, he thinks he does, but his calls on incidents make you wonder what he is watching, truly baffling at times.

Leeds were average. Wire were terrible.

I am fed up with that commentary team. It gets worse every week!

Maybe it's because they, like a lot of people, have looked like idiots for the past couple of years in saying how useless Leeds are only for them to win the championship.

I'll admit that they don't need a lot of help in looking like idiots though.

The TV game that's been covered best this year was the Hull derby, where Hemmings, Stevenson and Clarke were thankfully 100 miles away and Bill Arthur & Brian Carney were doing the commentary.

I suppose Phil Clarke is never biased towards Wigan is he....

If you're seriously trying to say that Phil Clarke's occasional bias towards his old club, when he's giving his brief stats and his thankfully fleeting opinions, somehow balances the nonsensical overhyping of St Helens a few years ago and now Leeds, then you are either deluded or being extremely mendacious.

The big problem I have with the Leeds nonsense is that I suspect it's some kind of counterattack after all the criticism that fans of all colours have been heaping on the current playoff system.

It's almost as if Eddie is saying: "Look ... look, they really are brilliant! Can't you see it? They are champions because they are just so breathtakingly incredible!" When this season, even by their own coach's admission, they've been little more than "solid".

Totally agree with all above. Warrington scored one of the best tries of the season, but they hardly mentioned it. R.U. commentators would of classed it as the best of a decade

To be fair, winning SL five times in the last six years does a pretty good job of highlighting who the best side has been in recent times before the Sky coverage starts.

If Wigan had a similar recent record, no doubt they would get the same sort of buttering up. Same happened with Saints.

Leeds are an exceptional side.

Except that they didn't.

You don't think there was media fawning over the 80s/90s Wigan side?!

I'm talking about the Sky muppets in particular ... who once even tried to make an issue of the fact that Wigan used to play the ball quickly, as if it was somehow unfair on everyone else.

What a lot of us are concerned about is the fact the now under the SKY dominance the GF selects the "League Champions".
What is actually happening week in and week out though is that summaries of coaches when they play various teams is that they tell us "(N) are the best team in the comp". In 2010 it was Wigan, 2011 Warrington and 2012 Wigan again.
They say that because they were playing the best rugby and winning more than anyone, losing fewer, scoring more points than others and conceding fewer.
Those facts select the best team in the League yet only in 2010 did the best team in the League win the GF.
The concept that the League Champions are by definition the best team in the League has been undermined by the facts as they currently are. Leeds were the best team in the League in 2009.
How we overcome this I'm not sure but one way surely is that the League Leaders get an automatic place in the GF. That's not going to happen as it would require a two week play off or otherwise the LL will be waiting for 2 weeks or more for the Grand Final to come around.
The other is to recognise the League Leaders properly with a far better trophy than now and also with a substantial financial reward for what is the most difficult trophy to win.

Were SKY around during that period ?

I've noticed it's always a 'love in' from Stevo (with his Yorkshire bias) and Hemmings, who doesn't know much about RL anyway, when Leeds play.

The NRL commentary team put the Sky mob to shame!