How were salford wakefield and cas that year? cos we put big scores on those as well as scoring 40 against leeds twice, 39 against wigan.



You can only beat what's in front of you, and as you say, bradford london and crusaders being very much cannon fodder saints piled on the points.



saints 16 - london 27

saints 28 bradford 16

crusaders 18 saints 34

saints 28 crusaders 12

saints 14 bradford 14

london 16 saints 34





As you say, cannon fodder.



And just to say, i'm not arguing anything here, someone else made a point, i'm just fleshing out history whether you want to accept it or not, we were smashing teams, sometimes we put the foot on the gas other times we went easy and during the season we'd beaten some teams before setting foot on the field, not that it did us any good when it got to the play offs.



However Wakey Saint seems to be trying very hard to convince himself that saints are the new big thing whilst getting his digs in at Warrington.

Are we not talking about Warrington 2011 and Saints 2018 here, if you want to go off piste, lets talk Saints 80-0 Wire, Saints 62-0 Wire, Saints 56-4 Wire, etc etc and all the other annihilations, foot on the gas so to speak.

???- all those results are 2011 so he certainly remains on piste.

Does it even matter how many points you beat teams by? I'd actually say having too many one sided contests are what ultimately cost Warrington in 2011 and Cas in 2017. If you look at Warrington's results in 2011 they hadn't had a real close score line since June when they then faced Leeds in the playoff SF, compared to Leeds who were in close battles most weeks then it was obvious who'd be better prepared for a close contest.



Winning comfortably most weeks would be good for the heart as a fan but it probably won't help you come crunch time when you're almost guaranteed close tight games.

I think you could be right with this.

Disagree.



We won our tight game in the semi final vs Saints. Couldn't get any closer.



We were then hammered by Leeds in a one sided game. So not being used to close games didn't cost us at all.

Cas started to get close games when the Super 8's started, the "Usual Suspects" started to up there game at this business end of the season. Most of the games got tougher, teams went up a notch but Cas couldn't get that extra notch for the finale.

You collapsed in the final 15 minutes with the pressure on and blew your lead, only won because Percival had a 'mare with the boot and Morgan gave away a needless pen. You didn't so much win it as Saints threw it away.

Do what you want fella, whatever makes you and the other Saints fans sleep at night.

Disagree again. We played strong for 65 minutes. Everyone has a poor patch. Ours was just at the end.



Yeh Percival had a mare with the boot but had he kicked 2 more. It would of tied the game up at 22 all with 5 mins left.... Meaning the game changes and who knows if Saints or Cas go on to win.

You didn't play well for 65 mins. Saints were better in the 1st half and deservedly lead at HT and the Cas players and fans were rattled with the latter easily worked up at the ref for no good reason. You had a good 20 min spell 2nd half and that was it.

The game we played in the first half kept us in the game. Meaning we played well. Not great but well.... We hammered most teams in 20 minute spells last year. Its how we played most games.



The fact here is we won a close game..... We lost a game which wasn't close. So the comment which said winning so many games by a big lead cost Cas is wrong.