: Fri Sep 18, 2009 10:15 pm  

raynor the crab wrote:

What ever. This has to be the most competitive super league season ever.

That's actually very interesting statement for discussion, taking only 5 minutes to look at 2007 vs 2009

2007
1 St Helens 27 19 0 8 783 422 +361 38
2 Leeds Rhinos 27 18 1 8 747 487 +260 37
3 Bradford Bulls* 27 17 1 9 778 560 +218 33
4 Hull FC 27 14 2 11 573 553 +20 30
5 Huddersfield Giants 27 13 1 13 638 543 +95 27
6 Wigan Warriors** 27 15 1 11 621 527 +94 27

2009
1 Leeds Rhinos 27 21 0 6 805 453 +352 42
2 St Helens 27 19 0 8 733 466 +267 38
3 Huddersfield Giants 27 18 0 9 690 416 +274 36
4 Hull Kingston Rovers 27 17 1 9 650 516 +134 35
5 Wakefield Wildcats 27 16 0 11 685 609 +76 32
6 Wigan Warriors 27 15 0 12 659 551 +108 30

Very similar tbh.

11 points between 1st and 6th v 12 points between 1st and 6th
5 points between 1st and 3rd v 6 points between 1st and 3rd

Not trying to undermine you guys btw, you've done very well this season, played some good to watch rugby and fair play to you.

I just keep seeing this 'most competitive season' statement being thrown around by a few fans from a few different clubs without any apparent evidence to really back it up. Also the above 2009 stats are also being pushed up by the fact that the bottom 2 clubs scored 6 and 14 points respectively (Celtic and Salford) versus 13 and 20 points in 2009 (Salford and your good selves).

So if anything the bottom clubs have actually got worse this season.

Just a curious observation.

Commiserations for tonight, you're a far better team than tonight performance and I really feel for the fans especially the ones who travelled to watch.

: Fri Sep 18, 2009 10:15 pm  

Big Dave T wrote:

No but i'd be told off from a legal perspective for saying on here.

Surely not if its true

: Fri Sep 18, 2009 10:16 pm  

Big Dave T wrote:

And Rovers first half try came on a 3rd repeat set following a trademark Gene eye gouge.

How do you know it was an eye gouge? He could have just been tickling him? Winding him up. His eyes certainly looked ok and he shouldn't have punched like he did. Wuss.

: Fri Sep 18, 2009 10:17 pm  

Roverswall wrote:

Surely not if its true

Yup, cos i cant factually prove it.

: Fri Sep 18, 2009 10:17 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

How do you know it was an eye gouge? He could have just been tickling him? Winding him up. His eyes certainly looked ok and he shouldn't have punched like he did. Wuss.

Grapple tackle at best.

: Fri Sep 18, 2009 10:17 pm  

Big Dave T wrote:

Yup, cos i cant factually prove it.

So it is in your mind then.
Why the hell didn't you just say so

: Fri Sep 18, 2009 10:18 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

How do you know it was an eye gouge? He could have just been tickling him? Winding him up. His eyes certainly looked ok and he shouldn't have punched like he did. Wuss.

Because sky showed the replay several times and in my crystal clear sky HD you can see Gene dig into his eyes/nose.

: Fri Sep 18, 2009 10:21 pm  

Big Dave T wrote:

Because sky showed the replay several times and in my crystal clear sky HD you can see Gene dig into his eyes/nose.

Yes..2 matches at least I reckon.tbh I was a bit disspapointed I really though Stan was a legend, that kind of p@ssed on that for me..dirty scoundrel

: Fri Sep 18, 2009 10:22 pm  

Big Dave T wrote:

Because sky showed the replay several times and in my crystal clear sky HD you can see Gene dig into his eyes/nose.

So you can't actually dicipher which part Gene touched be it his eyes or his nose yet it was a trade mark gouge?

: Fri Sep 18, 2009 10:22 pm  

Roverswall wrote:

So it is in your mind then.
Why the hell didn't you just say so

I shouldnt really say any more on the subject.