I think the most worrying thing for Rugby League in general is the quality of the games that have been televised by Sky so far.

At a time of year when Rugby Union is traditionally the golden sport of the British media, it is not helping our game that so far our sport, to any watching neutral, will have come across as very dull.

Yes, as fitness and pitches improve, games will get better, but the Salford-Celtic game was an example of the main worry most people had when extending our league to 14 clubs, and that is that the good quality player is not in a big enough abundance to warrant a larger league.

It's your knickers that he's after getting into.

Anyway, I think it's Political Correctness gone mad that we have to have these taffs, frogs, spics, southerners etc playing our game. Northern teams for Northern people, I say.

see i knew you were`nt a fan of this political correctness bollox...

The standard of Rugby has been far better than the majority of the 6 nations stuff, so that's not really relevant. League will get overlooked for the tournament anyway.

There have only been three games, with only Leeds and Celtic decided at the 60 minutes mark.

Celtic were right back in it at that point last night, and Saints v Wire was close after 60.

When you looked at the three games at the start, I think personally it has been better than expected, as I expected Leeds to put a decent amount on CC.

Not sure why you have a downer on the game last night, I thought it was fine.

I thought it was ok in a 'it was close' type of way, but quality wise it was pretty mediocre, and not really what Super League should be about.

Similarly, Friday night at Knowsley Road was of a higher quality, however for entertainment value it too was pretty dour and dull, and only sparked to life when Saints' comeback got a roll on.

I have no doubts that most of the Six Nations is poor, but we all know that Rugby Union is the darling of the media, and to be honest you'd have to be pretty blinkered to suggest that Super League so far has done anything to capture the imagination.

It is hard to judge the Saints v Wire game as a fan, as we will have been happy for the first 50, and then angry for the next 30.

I would have expected the neutrals to have enjoyed that game though. The underdogs were leading after 47mins, on course for their first ever victory at the ground in SL. The next 30 saw a dominant display from one of the best teams in the league.

I'm not sure what else you could have wanted from that game (apart from a Wire victory!).

I'm sure nobody expected classics fom the other two game, I actually think they delivered more than expected from them.

your not wrong I forced myself to Watch a bit of Englands opener against Italy..........

Jesus Wept.......possibly the worst standard of any kind of Rugby I've ever seen........ its a disgrace to any professional sportsman or woman that that game is held in so high esteem.

I genuinely believed the skill level on show in that game was similar to 10 and 11 year old Rugby League players....except i found myself watching that rubbish shaking my head and saying " for fecks sake..."

Being a despairing and frustrated old cynic, I am able to watch Wire with a pretty 'neutral' head, and to be honest on Friday night, Wire played well for 50 minutes in a '1-0 to the Arsenal' type of way....basically let's bore our way to victory.

Watching the match with 3 other similarly cynical old Wire fans, all through, the main comments were 'this is a bit dull' and 'attack wise, we haven't a clue'.

Of course, it'd have been great had Wire hung on for a victory, however, I think most neutrals were probably too busy flicking between the Rugby, 20/20 cricket, and what ever is on Channel 4 nowadays, to take much notice.