MrPhilb wrote:Rovers play a better brand of rugby to Hull but it's results that count. You'd take winning every game boring everyone to death rather than winning half of them playing great rugby and losing half because of your rugby
I agree with both bits. I also agree with the person who said that Rovers are too structured and predictable and that everything seems to have to be a training ground move with a lack of off the cuff rugby.
I'd say Saints are still the ultimate entertainers, some of their play is sensational and the fact they still produce it with kids is remarkable.
Then you have teams who could be called entertaining but a better word for me is expanisive. Castleford and Crusaders prime examples, teams who play with no fear but have a success ratio of 50/50. Whether this is entertaining or frustrating is down to personal preference.
Sports all about playing to your best assets, with no half back pairing and a pack which is much better than the backs, the way Hull play ATM is the most effective way.