There’s enough quality in the side, and their coach has a fairly decent record elsewhere. I agree it’s up to us to lose of course.

I wonder what the real issue is down at Hull? They keep getting the dark horses tag pre-season, but look more like one of those pantomime donkeys.

Yeh, like us, think we have the copyright on it’s always our year, that tag could apply to Hull.

Sounds like Thaler is giving everything to Leigh.

Hull are having a mare.

Connor and Houghton had been carrying them for years.

Redvee are now accusing Phil Clarke of libel and slander for addressing Saints' cheating on Thursday! The implosion is hilarious. Telling each other to email Sky and complain.

Just had a look over there and couple of them have had replies from Sky.

Got a reply back fom SKY Sports, pretty much dismissive saying the SKY team are balanced in their views and are very experienced in commentary having played the game. In other words sod off and watch Channel 4 instead.

Tbh and I will go wash my mouth out in a minute but I can’t disagree with them e-mailing Sky about not just Clarke but about the whole set up, we have all been saying for a long time how garbage it is.

So it’s got me thinking are Sky doing it deliberately because they have/or lost interest in covering Rugby League, the money is going down and the service generally getting poorer and poorer. They have more interest now in the NFL and women’s football and all these quirky cricket contests, I just think they are slowly phasing us out. Hope I’m wrong ofc but there is not a teams fans out there that is not complaining about it.

Oh I agree with the overall assessment of Sky's coverage. It's awful. Far too many cooks spoiling the broth of the broadcast, take Thursday for example. Were there something like six or seven competing voices through the whole show? All vying to either be controversial or funny or an inane mix of both. Unlike today's offering on channel four, they meander around topics while often ignoring the game that is being played out in front of them. And like I said elsewhere, Stuart Pike just shouts about everything as if his brief is to just make EVERYTHING SOUND EXCITING! But the powers that be at Sky clearly don't care about the brand/product that much and as you say, the way it is given such short shrift you can only assume they're phasing it out.

Still, funny to see the mouth breathers getting so upset about Clarke. Was I supposed to get so upset at Wilkin for saying Saints should just cheat because everyone else does? Ridiculous.

Those scousers with a WA postcode are a strange breed, aren't they?
From the inception of SL in 1996, until their respective retirements, they had [ismoke blown up their ar535[/i by Eddie and Stevo for 20 years (despite Eddie being a bitter Wid). Now they've gone, the level of hyperbole directed at Saints has rightly diminished..... (let's be fair, despite Woolf's successes, Saints were just another robotic NRL side. The tag of "entertainers" long since gone).
Fans berating opposition coaches, temper tantrums when things aren't going their way, and now letters to Sky complaining of anti Saints coverage, and dare I say it, Phil Clarke being a bit of a whopper..... haven't they realised yet that Clarke is a wind up merchant???? It seems he's got them frothing at the mouth.

As for Sky itself, anyone who sits through punditry and complains, deserves all they get. Simply turn on/off at the start/end of the game, and make a brew at half time. I realised this, years ago

I have to defend Sky a bit here.

Yes, there's lots to complain about, BUT and it's a big BUT, it means I can watch rugby league week in week out.
OK for you guys and guyesses living in the north, but I've got a 2 hour + journey for every match.

I now have the luxury of seeing matches on a number of broadcasters and - given the costs involved these days - can be more selective in the matches I go to.

Go back to the pre Sky times and we got minimal tv coverage except for the CC and Ashes / World Cup.
I think back in the 70's we had RL on the Beeb on a Saturday afternoon many weekends. That too came with a 'nothern' tilt - Eddie Waring etc - which polarized views of the sport.

So let's not just moan about Sky, but give a more balanced reaction.

We're not having a go at Sky, [iper se[/i fez1. I've praised them for their EXPOSURE of our sport (post 89, and the inception of SL) and their much needed cash. After all, we wouldn't have got Langer et al, without Sky's cash, and several clubs getting new stadia.
My two bugbears with them are (and I've mentioned this for a while)
CURRENT level of exposure. We trail behind darts, women's football, lower league football. You can count on the fingers of one hand, the amount of times we're on [iMain Event [/i. They're losing interest in us

Actual coverage.
9 people... NINE XXXXING PEOPLE to cover one game. And then, there's the quality (sic) of those people.

What little of C4's coverage I've seen, it's streets ahead of Sky.
Mark Wilson's good, too, although a touch Yarkshiremon. I watched yesterday's game this morning, and I thought he'd [isoiled himself[/i several times, when Laaaayyyyyyyyds scored.

That's fair.

I agree with you about the number of people covering the match - for me it's a case of less is more.
I said on another post that I thought they could cut it down to 5 and it would be a tighter programme.

Regarding exposure, in these politically challenged times diversity is the name of the game regardless of all other concerns.
A few years ago the standard of womens football was a joke in my opinion but now it's a better level and more entertaining. Attendances (and I assume therefore) viewing figures are on the rise.
I guess darts will always have a following, as will snooker.
It would be interesting to see the growth of and viewing figures for all the sports.