All I ask is the team plays close to its potential - I would prefer if they win - but you simply cannot win every game. Leeds only played to anything like their potential on 3/4 games in the whole season . At the end of the day this is entertainment nothing more - this is not soccer, I want to the best players to show real skill, perhaps that is why its so refreshing to watch the Aussie national side - a side who are able to do the game's simple skills effectively and consistently.

Gareth, I never thought you a dreamer but what real depth/adversity did these pampered professionals suffer? Being written off based on the quality of your own performances doesn't count as adversity?

Can I recommend "Secret millionaire" on Yorkshire TV tonight. A guy comes back to his home city to help the needy and his car is carjacked with him inside.

But you thought I was dreamy didn't you?

A nightmare for some I'd have said.

Did you prefer the 2005 season to last season?
Imo we played some of the most entertaining rugby I have seen from a Leeds team in 2005. Yet we reached both finals and lost them both. Some fans on here have described 2005 as a diappointing season.
Last season we were indifferent for most of the year yet it was ultimatley a successful finale ending as champions.
I got more enjoyment from watching the team on a weekly basis in 05 but give me last season everytime.

Me too.....

it also makes the decision as to whether it would be worthwhile making the commitment to purchase a season ticket a lot easier

Me too.

If you look at the weekly results in 2005, certyainly prior to the CC final, that team was more dominant than the 2004 version. Yet it won nowt and the season was a bitter dissapointment.

We won the WCC

Without a doubt - as I said winning isn't the be all and end all. I want to see elite players playing the game to elite standards - so by that criteria 2005 was a superior year.

Sal Paradise doesn't value that at all. But good point.

I've always wondered if those people who simply measured success by the number of trophies in the cabinet at the season's end, were of the "never mind the quality, feel the width" school of thought.....

Well, you may say he's a dreamer.

But he's not the only one.

I hope some day, you'll find us.

Trophies won for me.

I had a great time following Leeds in 2005. It certainly didn't compete with the euphoria of 2004, and actually I think I am able to reflect on it more fondly in light of the 4 titles we've won since. But, we did play some of the best rugby I've seen from any side in this country, particluarly in the first half of the season. But ultimately the point of professional sport is to win, and a season which bumbles along and ends on a high sits better in my memory than one that starts with fireworks and then fizzles out.

Did you manage to watch all season in 2005 or just pick and choose the odd game?

It certainly didn't "fizzle out". We hit an injury situation because of the coaches silly decision. That same decision cost us both trophies in the end. The season however was still fantastic, and the rugby the best we have played throughout any era since the 70's.

Are you really saying that last season compared to 2005 just because we actually managed to receive a trophy in that year?

I did see the whole season, home and away, from beginning to end, thanks for patronising though.

When you start (and continue through the middle) as the dominant force in the league before ultimately falling short and winning nothing, that counts as fizzling out in my book. You can blame the coach's decision re Senior for the loss in Cardiff without too much objection (while I maintain that you can't know what would have happened had he selected a different team) but to blame the Grand Final defeat on that doesn't really stack up. By the time we got to Old Trafford, that decision had ruled one player out. Big deal. What cost us that trophy was that we ran out of steam while Bradford peaked at the right time and won (13?) on the spin at the end of the season.

So, am I saying that last season compared to 2005? Depends what you mean. For direct comparison it was a very different season, but for me the low points made the ultimate high point all the more sweet. I certainly didn't feel as chirpy walking away from Old Trafford at the very end of 2005. Several games from 2005 linger in the memory and I enjoyed the season. As I say, I would probably remember it less fondly had we not subsequently reclaimed that trophy. For me, last season the ultimate goal was accomplished, in 2005 it wasn't. For me, that makes it a better season. You can view it differently (surely this is a subjective thing after all) but I fail to see the point of getting all uppity and incredulous because my view is different to yours.

You'd think your six foot wanger would make you a little less insecure than that.

2011, will only be remembered for what, 3 games maybe?!

Should rugby league have a "Harlem Globetrotters" exhibition team for those that care more about "entertainment" than being champions?

Had I put a it down as a statement then I would accept your patronising comment. But it was a question and that's all. So I will take it as you been touchy.




We didn't run out of steam. We had players out of position, and it cost us, which came down to the one decision at Cardiff. Had Senior not played then, he would have been fit for the proper big one.

2005 was a great year. I would suggest those stating otherwise are nothing more than glory seeking bandwagoners. I hope that doesn't sound too patronising to those it applies to, or those of a sensitive nature.

Yet another example of how obtuse you can be when your views are challenged. Rugby is entertainment, nobody would go and watch a game against the Aussie national side if winning was why they went, we have no chance of winning. A lot go to have the opportunity to see the likes of Inglis, Slater, Lockyer i.e. the best the game has to offer that is what entertainment is about.

Nah LL, a bit more than the last 3. I can still remember the first half dozen, and the W.T.F. was that all about looks on the faces of fellow Rhinos fans.

For me, I'd prefer to watch a season where my team played up to their abilities, and if they made the GF, and on that day they were better than the opposition, then great! And despite being teed off if we lose, I don't simply consign the season to the dustbin on the basis of that one final match.

I vaguely remember a cricket match a few years back where the opposition had to score 4 of the last ball to win, so the bowler made sure of the result by bowling underarm along the ground! I'm pretty sure he was an Aussie, and I reckon if you've got to win in that style, you deserve a smack around the helmet from the departing batsman.

So why the bigger attendances in the big leagues? Why in the big leagues, the bigger attendances at the big games? Why do winning teams get bigger attendances? Because of what's at stake - meaningful wins and losses.

People watch games against the Aussie national side because when then win comes, it means more than another win. (The fact you say we have no chance of winning, despite have frequently beaten them just shows your mentality)

If it's the skills of Inglis, Slater, Lockyer, go watch a training session. You will see far greater skills shown there more often than they get to show in a game. However, without a meaningful result, it's entirely irrelevant. It's only meaningful when something is at stake.

[Wheels mode Being [\Wheels mode

I was unaware that questions couldn't be patronising. How silly of me.



Firstly, regardless of why he was out, if missing one centre is enough to cost you a Grand Final then your squad isn't good enough. We've certainly won Grand Finals with key injuries in the backs since then.

Besides which, you or I have absolutely no way of knowing whether Senior would have been fit for Old Trafford had he not played in Cardiff. Ligament injuries are tricky things to predict recovery for, even for qualified professionals who are able to assess the injury in person rather than from 70 yards away in a stand. You are neither.



Patronising? Possibly. Demonstrative of an inabilty to accept that there are more than one set of values by which you can judge a situation? Certainly.

I can see why you prefer 2005. They are perfectly valid reasons and I'm not going to start calling anyone names for holding a different opinion. Mine just differs. Doesn't mean that I didn't enjoy 2005, as I have already said I did.

Since it took nearly 20 years of supporting Leeds for me to see my first title win, I'll pass on the bandwagoners remark. As for glory-seeking, I think the pursuit of glory is an excellent trait in a sports team. It isn't the only view, but I don't think it's a view that's the sole preserve of bandwagoners. There's a phrase "no guts, no glory." If the phrase "no guts, no entertaiment ultimately not rewarded by meaningful silverware" is in popular use then it has passed me by I'm afraid.

Chicks dig winners. They also dig entertainers (ask Gene Simmons). Live and let live I say.