Perhaps, although we've played loads of games that turn out to be more competitive than might reasonably have been expected. I'd suggest the term embarrassing only really applies to those that are ultimately lost.

Why was it embarrassing for Leigh to beat Wigan?


I don't want this to sound too sarcastic but............this years award for stating the bleedin' obvious goes to FearTheVee.

Why is the fact that the NRL so clearly much stronger than Super league in any way embarrassing for Leeds if they go out and beat an NRL team in a World Club Challenge?

I suppose I just wanted to see the Dogs ground into the dirt (particularly Luke Patten and Steve Foulkes, both of whom I can't stand).

Because they barely scraped a win over an academy team and were taking drop goals to do so. Most of the Leigh fans' comments I've read suggest they found it pretty embarrassing.



It's not embarrassing for Leeds to beat an NRL team, it's pretty embarrassing for British RL that our best team struggles to beat an NRL team putting out lots of reserve graders and is clinging on at the death. In the same sort of way it was pretty embarrassing how England toiled against PNG in the last world cup.

Not much I can do about the state of British RL. All I can do is hope the other clubs match the efforts of Leeds and Saints on the field and in junior production.

In the meantime I pay my money and watch the games. I paid and watched the Canterbury game and they were not as under strength as you recall and, even if there were, given the supposed superiority of the NRL so what? I left that happy we'd won a title, satisfied with the matchup I had seen and with feelings pretty much far from embarrassment.

This aint a cheap dig but I'd have felt embarrassed had I come away with my team suffering a 38 nil defeat.

Absolutely - not a great night. Perhaps Leeds may have suffered similar agonies had the Dogs sent a proper team, but I suppose we'll never know.

By the same "ain't a cheap dig" token, until Leeds beat a full strength NRL team (i.e. in 2001 the Broncos team beaten by Saints contained the likes of Lockyer, Tuqiri, Sailor, Berrigan, Prince, Webke, Priddis, Civoniceva, Tallis, Carlaw etc) then their WCC record will consist of beating reserve graders and losing comfortably to a Manly side with the cue on the rack.

Here's hoping you can turn over Melbourne.

The conclusion being that all NRL teams only have 13 really good players, the rest just making up the numbers and not therefore counting in any assessment of their team as a whole - presumably the same people who follow this mantra don't therefore include those games throughout the season when those 13 ace players are injured ?

By that reckoning Manly beat an understrength Leeds outfit missing Buderus,Webb,Eastwood with a 2nd rower at 3(Ablett) and a concussed Burrow.
I'm also sure the likes of Cronk,Blair,White,Hoffman,Johnson,Falou,Quinn,Slater and Lima etc appreciate been branded reserve graders.
There's pros and cons in every team that plays in a WCC and Melbourne in 2008 were considered the best prepared out of ANY previous NRL visitors.
I look forwadr to this years challenge and whoever wins deserves to be labelled the WCC champions irrespective of who did/didn't play.

Aye, those well known reserve graders Patten, El Masri, Lolesi, Tonga, Anasta, Corey Hughes, Perry, Asotasi, Maitua and SBW the Dogs put out just weren't good enough.

They were certainly good enough, and had they had some more of their regular team mates (like Willie Mason, Mark O'Meley, Matt Utai, Ben Harris, Brent Sherwin, captain Andrew Ryan etc) with them rather than the likes of Trent Cutler, Brett Oliver, Adam Brideson, Ben Czlisowski(?), Nate Myles on first grade debut and Chris Armit signing from Parra reserve grade, they might have covered off the eventual 7 point margin.

I suppose Bradley Clyde was on standby to cover Trent Cutler's suspected DVT though so it could have been worse . . . .

You've been skirting around it FTV but you've let it rise to the surface. I knew what you were driving at from the outside but you tried to disguise it as a reasoned post.

The Saints fans' legendary arrogance.

We've had our Grand Final wins excused and devalued by fans of the "mighty S" and it was only a matter of time before our World Club Championships were devalued.

Only in the mind of a supporter of "the Entertainers" could a 38 nil defeat have more value than a World Club Championship win. The "team that revolutionized Super league" are so superior that even when they're trounced they're better than us.

On the eve of the season its' good to remind ourselves of the sheer delusional arrogance of Saints supporters.

Is this the same "Entertainers" who managed to average less than 12 points per game in their last 8 games?

Me writing about the Bulldogs team doesn't devalue your win years after the event. The game was devalued before it even kicked off due to the Bulldogs' shameful approach to it.



Getting beat 38-0 is FAR worse than beating half a team, I would rather we beat a team of blind schoolgirls than lose 38-0 - Leeds get to add the trophy to the honours board .



How is saying the Bulldogs had a fair few reserve graders and debutants on the pitch arrogance? It's the truth.

Oh, I always use Quotation marks when giving St Helens the self appointed, unwarranted titles their arrogant fans attatch to them because, frankly, its' laughable and unsustainable.

Does giving us reasons to laugh at them season after season not qualify them as 'Entertainers'?

The popular side fairy lights previously used at "The Saints Experience" at Knowsley Road give us at least another 50 years as The Entertainers, especially since they sagged into a boob shape.

If you don't know what I'm on about, search for something like Tommy Martyn Wonder Pass on a well known video site.

D. I. S. C. O.

Wow

it would have been more shameful had they fielded Ben Harris as you suggest,

Im not sure Bradford would have been happy about it either

You cannot compare the preparations of Melbourne and Leeds and suggest they are in any way even for the WCC. Leeds will have played at least two competitive league games. Melbourne will have played maybe one trial game (usually involving plenty of subs like our own pre-season games). That is what stops it being a genuine WCC IMO - sending over a weakened side is their problem entirely, just as it would be if the missing players were out due to injury.

Just as GB's series win against NZ shouldn't be devalued because the Kiwis sent a poor squad with a useless coach. We've done the same quite often....although possibly not on purpose.

I completely dissagree.

Melbourne started training long before Leeds came back to training, with them specifically saying that they are preparing for the WCC.

You can not compare the prepartions of this year to what the Aussies were doing 4 or 5 years ago.

There is only one thing that devalues the WCC

The apathy from supporters.

Yep, and its amazing how something becomes devalued by English supporters when an English team wins it.
The WCC is always quoted as "the difference between the 2 leagues" when an Aussie club wins it.
Yet is always "unimportant and unfair on the Aussies" when an English team wins it.

Forgive my ignorance, but I was under the impression that the missing players wouldn't have been fit for the WCC weekend irrespective of whether it was an NRL game, a WCC or a trial - given that most of those left behind are recovering from off-season surgery with the aim of being fit for NRL Round 1.

You can't have it both ways.

From my point of view Manly beat a Leeds side missing lots of first team players, and in 2005 we were winning by a street, and put our cue back on the rack, allowing Caterbury back into the game