WiganWarriorsFans.com

Leeds looked in control for much of the first half, but a smartly-taken try from Kyle Feldt gives Saints the lead at the break.

But Saints have a real jewel in Harry Robertson, what a talent the lad is. Let's hope he stays in SL for a decent amount of time. He serves a try up on a plate for Sailor.

He did indeed but how well average are Leeds?

They’re miles off being any sort of force in my opinion

Yeah, only one winner in the second half.

Amazingly, Leeds seem to have gone backwards.

Marginally better go forward, but still very fragile in defence and no real guts when the going gets tough, but they aren't even an attacking threat now which was their one saving grace under the Smith experiment.

Considering the money Leeds splurged on Croft (how did he win man of steel)and Akers you’d think they’d be on their way but no it’s been what 8 years since the last of the golden generation retired and here they are still rebuilding something wrong at the club in my opinion

Leeds are a shadow of their former selves. Looked a bit clueless at times. Saints didn't need to get out of 2nd gear for most of the game. Even they weren't brilliant but a damned sight better than Leeds.
Poor turn out for the game as well. Only 7,500 on. They didn't even open the away end for the Leeds fans.
Wonder what our attendance will be today even with a ticket price reduction.

fozzie58 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 15, 2025 8:07 am Considering the money Leeds splurged on Croft (how did he win man of steel)and Akers you’d think they’d be on their way but no it’s been what 8 years since the last of the golden generation retired and here they are still rebuilding something wrong at the club in my opinion

I thought during the game, where was the much-touted Croft? To be fair, what I do recall of him was receiving a couple of of awful hospital passes from team-mates , but really, it seemed to me what limited threat Leeds offered in attack came mostly from Jake Connor, who also did most of the kicking.

I wasn't terribly interested in the match but noticed a comment in a newspaper that the match was available on 'The Sportsman's YouTube Channel.' I idly clicked on a link - saw that the match was on and that you had to subscribe. I clicked to see how much it would be (not planning to pay to subscribe); the link on the site changed to 'Subscribed' and the match appeared on the screen in crystal-clear HD. A note appeared asking if I would agree to messages - I said not and it disappeared.
Have I really found something for nothing? I can't see a downside but I've no idea who owns or runs the YouTube channel. I imagine it's Betfred but not sure why it would be free and I certainly have no account (or plan to have one ) with Betfred.
By the way - Leeds were rubbish and Saints were very stroppy with a lot of afters in completed tackles. Neither of them looked much cop.

Surely, in the contest of Youtube, 'subscribe' doesn't mean, or imply, 'pay for'? It's only like 'following' someone on FB or Twitter/X?

All of YouTube is 'free' (unless you want to pay for an ad-free version).