I allways think rovers are an unfacied team, even if we are at full strength. Does anyone like me think were overlooked by the likes of Sky and the weekly rugby papers? I only say that, cause we seem like an after thought to the media.

Yeah, I do sometime's think we're unfairly rated. Most pundits had us mixing it with the bottom 6 as they have throughout our Superleague reign, I can't decide if I prefer it that way? We draw with Saints with key players missing, we didn't play well, though. Saints were poor.

I allways thought it was me. I agree. No matter how well we play, it allways seems to me that if you get beat or draw with kr, then it's a bad result.

Before the announcement of our further injuries this week, the Wire fans were already predicting a good 40+ point margin.

I quite like them doing that, though, I sometimes hope their players turn up expecting it.

Tomorrow, I fear they may be right though, one too many players out I reckon.

You mayby right about the result. It would be in my opinion the best result in super league if we win on Sunday. Tho I doubt it too. I think if everyone is fit then we have a top 5 squad. But the media just see us as cannon fodder. But if they just applied a bit of jourlalism, they'd probably see it too. It narks me that the media seem to forget there's a super league side east of the river.

And only after finishing there for 10 seasons in a row will we be better then last.

It's quite obvious they don't care to know anything about us.

As people have been posting, The bookmakers don't realise that Lovegrove is actually attacking on the wing and they're giving odds of upto 40/1 that he'll score first.

Was it 2006 when we stuffed them in the cup with a much weaker squad?

I usually feel expectations are artificially low - just slightly. We're not the most fashionable of clubs and a lot of our better players in recent years have been Aussies that were, at least initially, unfamiliar to most over here.
Rugby League World pre-season predictions (actual finish):
2008: 10th (7th)
2009: 8th (4th or 6th, depending on how you count it)
2010: 8th (7th or 6th)
2011: 8th (7th)
2012: 8th - consistent at least! (?)

Partly explained by the delay in them noticing Bradford's malaise - this is the first year in the above period they've predicted lower than 5th for the Bulls. They've had Hull ahead of us throughout that time as well.

Good work that, MR.

I don't get why Fc are predicted above us. Don't get me wrong, I think Fc's first 17 is fairly strong, but we all know injuries take their toll, but after that they are very week. That's were Rovers have the upper hand over them this year as well as the size of our forwards. Once again, sloppy journalism.