You're consumed by this result. I was pi$$ed off mightily at the time, but over the course of the season we did better than them and ultimately the win earned them only the right to being embarrassed by Wigan the following week, despite Vella saying they (Rovers) would win the Grand Final. A loss by 17 points when we lost our HB pairing on 58 seconds is not really a "humiliation".

Cheer up. Morgan will be on the back page of the HDM in approximately 5 weeks with his annual article on Rovers doing the double - Mullan can just get last year's and do a "find and replace" 2010 for 2011. That should cheer you up. Your favourite massive signing Mason will be here in the meantime so that should provide a further distraction.

Priceless - look at you getting all riled up and "resorting" to this nonsense. The difference, cockle, is that the content of my posts is not 70% slating FC balanced by 30% praising Rovers.

In 2008 Melbourne storm finished first in the NRL, they were beaten in the first round of the play offs by the NZ Warriors (who finished eigth). Did they have a better season?

They were "top dogs" in Melbourne. Very important that for our good friend Mr Brindley - all that matters in fact.

Depends how their playoff system works I guess. Combining our league standings with playoff results means we finished 7th in the competion and Rovers finished 6th or 5th I believe.

I know many try to argue this but there's no disputing we were paid prize money for finishing 7th, a mate of mine emailed the RFL about it.

So, for clarity, you are saying that because Warriors beat the Storm in the play offs they (the Warriors) had the better season?

I misread what you were saying and corrected myself, see above.

I do apologise for going off topic but the thread veered off a few pages back due to the constant belittling of everything black and white from our new dobbin friend.

To be honest, i'm firmly of the belief that the winners of the league leaders shield is by far the "best" team in the comp. If Wigan hadn't of won the GF would they have only been the 2nd best team in your eyes?
You seem to be measuring sucess on a knockout series basis. If that's the case, why so dismissive of our Wembley appearance in 2008?

As you say, slating them was overstating it. Fact is we have seen nothing from Lynn yet in the first team and there are 6 or 7 better hookers than Houghton around based on last season, I did also say he'd improved dramatically. Especially after the likes of Lee flopping so badly I tend to avoid listening to the hype and praising players for doing not much and hope quietly that they'll produce the goods at which time I'm happy to big them up.

I didn't dismiss getting to the CC final but as a barometer of a manager's achievements I don't think one appearance in the final after a fairly easy run to the final counts for much. As I've already said, the result in the final game of last season is so important because it meant that for three seasons in a row Morgan had outperformed Agar in the objective sense, albeit not from your subjective point of view.

I know a lot of people view it like that and I can see why but it is a subjective point of view, objectively the defeat to Rovers in the playoffs meant they finished above us in that years competition.. that's the point I'm making, maybe we did perform better than them during the course of the season but in the record books it counts for nothing. Going on to your Wigan question, the same applies.. perhaps they would have shown themselves to be a 'better team' but whoever had beaten them would have achieved more in the competition than them and that's what I'm interested in.

Gone completely off topic so it's gone.