Wonder what would have happened if someone had told him the Giants were missing Mason,O'Donnell,Fa'alogo,Raleigh and Horne from our regular pack and still stuffed them?? i can imagine the poor chap not been able to accept it and having a mental breakdown on air with Clarkey having to rock him in his arms till medical help arrived !!

Completely agree with that. Stevo can sound like a geriatric, and i think its one of the things holding us back. Wells is great though, undecided on Tez and Baz, and Clarke ok but can be very bias.

Also, anyone noticed how Eddie always seems to want to sit on the special guests knee? he always seems about 2 inches from them ?!

If you compare Sky's coverage to the BBC's... there is no comparison.

I can’t work out if you mean that positively for Sky or not?

The BBC have a better host in Clare Balding and usually have a panel of 2 or 3 studio guests so the pre and post game is better on the BBC. During the game, the standard of camera work in the Sky coverage is far better – the part time director at the BBC often cuts back to replays as the game is going on which is infuriating

As for commentary – both as bad as each other for me – Sky have Hemmings and Stevo and on the Sunday matches the BBC have French and Davis (who seems uninterested)

It could be worse though, imagine the hell that would be French commenting and Stevo as the summariser... the whole world would be swallowed by a singularity caused by the critical mass of Northern stereotypes

French and Eddie together in the booth, with Harry Gration presenting and Joanthan Davies and Phil Clarke as analysts and camerawork/direction from the BBC is the nightmare scenario.

Some combination of Balding, Woods, Noble and Wells, with Sky's camerawork, would be a better prospect.

I fail to see the attraction in Claire Baldings presenting style.

At least Eddie puts a bit of passion into his commentry,the commentators on the Union games sound like they are about to nod off.

that tends to happen when watching rugby union

As has been said in this thread. It's not only the amount of injuries that saints have been dealing with, but it's the fact that 6 half backs are injured. 6!

There isn't many teams in the league that could deal with that. I know the crusaders had massive injury problems for the last two years. When we lost Witt, Hanbury, Lee, Withers and White, we were at odds end. But then Sammut came over and pretty much rescued our season last year.

They are just going to have to deal with it, and sort it out for next year. Pryce is pretty much done, eastmond is a goner. They need to bring some players in.

Have heard Brian Moore commentate?

And I always thought he supported leeds!!!, and that Danny Maguire was Eddie n Stevos 'love child', At least when they are banging on about Stains injuries,and lets face it all our teams have players out they give us a break from how good he is ??????

I thought he was going to jizz himself when he was talking about Foster's goal kicking.... his commentary ruined the game for me, i turned the volume down and watched in silence, much better

Sts have done far better than any other team would with their halfbacks missing. Take the top two out of any other team and they wouldn't be anywhere near as competitive as Sts generally are. I'd also say its true that teams tend to suffer more when injuries occur to players in the same position - losing your first choice 4 props is worse than 4 random players.

The difference is that Saints are missing some decent players. All Leigh's players were crap in 2005 so it didn't really matter how many were out injured in any one time.

Dunno bud,don`t watch much Union.

That's coz nobody gives a f*ck about leigh ....nothing to to with the RFL or anyone else