With all the political fireworks of recent days it would have been a fair bet that this week's prime minister's questions would have been a lively affair - it wasn't.
While former home secretary Charles Clarke having just attacked Tony Blair and John Reid in the papers and on the airwaves, Labour backbenchers seemed to have been persuaded to be on their best behaviour in the chamber.
Janet Anderson managed to waste a good few of the opening minutes asking about pay inequality at the Wimbledon tennis finals, much to the derision of the Conservative benches which seemed to forget their new politically-correct stance.
If combined with Claire Curtis-Thomas's bid to restrict lads' mags depicting scantily clad women we could soon see the female players in tracksuits - I am afraid the affect on their pay would not be good.
Other questions from Labour backbenchers concentrated almost exclusively on local issues which managed to highlight the party's public spending and get them in their regional paper but did not make for much of a spectacle.
With so much ammunition from Clarke, Cameron should have been explosive - instead he asked about the future of Britain's nuclear deterrent. He tried to link it to the divisions between the prime minister and the chancellor but, frankly, fell a bit flat.
Cameron used his follow up to quote the BBC political editor's assessment of the chancellor - I thought political journalists were meant to quote politicians and not vice versa.
He then tried his A-grade material: "Isn't there a danger that the prime minister is becoming the David Brent of Downing Street - utterly redundant and just hanging round the office?"
It wasn't a bad joke and it will get into the papers but hardly skewered a prime minister fighting for his political life.
Blair then tried to shoo-in criticism of that elusive creature - a Conservative policy.
Cameron's British bill of rights and abolition of the Human Rights Act was assessed by Ken Clarke in rather scathing terms.
Blair said: "His only domestic policy was denounced by the chairman of his own democracy commission as 'xenophobic legal nonsense' - I'm surprised that when he has just announced a major change to the British constitution he doesn't want to debate it."
It was a good point. However the Speaker probably should have intervened as it is prime minister's questions not leader of the opposition's questions after all.
Sir Menzies Campbell then asked about the situation in the Gaza Strip. No one doubts his knowledge in this area but most do have doubts about him on domestic policy - a perception he does not help by going foreign at any opportunity. As important as the situation is between the Palestinians and Israelis is, I doubt there are many votes in it.
The same could probably be said of Cameron's second set of questions on the impending world trade talks which Blair batted away as it is something he knows even more about than Sir Menzies.
There were then two Labour backbench questions about local Tory "collusion" with extreme right-wingers before the Speaker did intervene to tell them that it isn't the responsibility of the prime minister - "something I'm sure he's relieved about".
However they did seem to be part of an embryonic Labour tactic to counter the threat of Cameron by highlighting continuing right-wing links and policies and suggesting any change is cosmetic.
The evidence of attempt to leave the European Peoples' Party and the bill of rights stance suggests it could be a tactic with some merit. Expect to see it repeated in the coming months.
The verdict
Tony Blair: 7/10 - With heavyweights like Charles Clarke criticising him, Cameron and Sir Menzies did not bother the prime minister.
David Cameron: 6/10 - Given the background it seemed like a wasted opportunity.
Sir Menzies: 6/10 - Remained in the comfort zone of foreign affairs.
