Well said old fella. Onwards and upwards etc..

Now if that were to happen it would couse some on here to cough... just a little. But I suppose it would then be put down to GH's cunning plan of non-recruitment rather than BM's jumping over all the hurdles than he has had to face (Whino!)

If we win the GF I'll be the first to take back my negative comments about BM. If we get to the GF, I'll give him a pass mark for the season. If we lose I'll look at how we got to Wembley (playing really poor teams) and our end of season run in the league (not one decent team played in two months).



If we do win the GF, a lot of posters will have to take stuff back about both BM and the squad. Personally I think our issues are a mixture of both, particularly in the forwards, where we look really ordinary IMO.

"Rose tint"?



Allow me to clarify ... my post might have looked like a positive comment and I guess it was, a bit, ... but it was actually only meant as a slight shift away from the negative, I am still not happy about selections or positions.

Matt King will present a different challenge for Hardaker if he stays in the centres on Friday. If Ablett is fit I wouldn't be surprised to see McDermott opt for his more physical presence on that left hand side with Delaney to look after Atkins on the opposite flank.

On McDermott, we are told that he has been making cultural changes. That message comes from the players.



I retain a degree of skepticism, as there was an element of shambles about too much of what we have done this season, and we still look vulnerable in an organisational sense at times. However, I will still only advocate a change of coach if youy can be very sure that what comes in is an improvement.



With that in mind, I think he will stay at the helm next season, and that is when we will see whether his revolution is a success. I am still to be won over, but I hope he can do it. I promise to declare myself wrong and apologise if that proves to be the case. Not that he'll care much what I think, but it's good for my karma.

We could, of course, debate this in circles until the cows come home (they're on the late shift tonight too) but for me, Super League is no longer decided by the league ladder. In my book, you play to the rules of the competition as they are set out. Therefore, if you pick up the prize money for 4th, you finished 4th.



Does anybody actually officially produce any final rankings after the play-offs? If not, we're very firmly in opinion territory again.



For me, the ultimate aim is to win the Grand Final, and we have advanced further down that road than Huddersfield, so in my book we are now assured of 4th in this year's competition. If we finish the season as unlikely champions, then we would be, in my book, an equally unlikely 1st in the rankings.



Not that my book is worth a great deal of course.

No - you're right. If we win the GF we will be champions - same as any of the other teams. We've won the title from 2nd, and does anybody really care/remember that we weren't first on the league table at the end of the season? I seem to remember the odd thread started by disgruntled Sts fans, but I don't think anyone else cared.



If Wire don't win the GF, this will be seen as their version of 2005 - good rugby, lots of points and no trophies.

After Webb got pushed out on the wing after his drop on Friday for BJB, could we see BJB at Full back and Hardaker on the wing?

Like Brisbane said mate......

AP once did but I can't recall the source or whether it could be classed in anyway as official. I'm so far out of the loop these days it gets annoying at times.



History will undoubtedly clearly state the final league placings at the conclusion of 27 regular rounds and quite seperately list the SL Champions and runners-up.



__________



I remain of the opinion that ideally the teams finishing 1st and 2nd should be favoured to meet in the GF and the format employed should reflect that aim.