This.

Everyone starts the season knowing perfectly well how the champions will be decided. The league has a primary objective: winning the Grand Final. It's no use failing to do that and then unilaterally deciding that actually you don't much like the system and what you did should be what counts.

The best team in the league is the one that best achieves the primary objective of the competition.

If you changed the goalposts, teams would probably change their targets accordingly. Wigan played more consistently well than anyone else, and if that's what the rules of the competition they signed up for had as priority, that would be a great achievement. As it was, they knew where and when the silverware was dished out, but had no other gear to go to when it mattered. As reward they get a nice little shield (better than nowt, it sits in the trophy cabinet) and the honour of being only the 3rd team in the SL era to win the league leaders' shield and not reach the Grand Final. Kudos.

Just because they are the rules it doesn't mean they are right rules or popular amongst supporters.
As I said I have no beef with Leeds winning; far from it. I don't like the system that's all.
Hypothetically I would say a team that dominated the league (winning the league) for a number of years could be called great, whereas its harder to level that degree of justification to what Leeds have achieved over the last two years.
It may be in the rules, but its a paradox.
If Leeds one the league 10 years on the spin undefeated and were beaten by a team finishing eight losing half of their games each year in a Grand Final, who would have the right to be called a great side?
1) the team unbeaten for a decade thats dominated the league, or
2) the team that's lost half its league games each year, scraped into the play offs but got the knack?

Like the NRL, the NFL, The Champions League, The RU Championship, The Heineken Cup decides the Champions of Europe, like the NHL, the NBA, the World Series.....oh and like the Rugby League used to decide who was Champions until someone changed it in 1972. Leeds would have a lot more Championships if a league based system had been used from the birth of the rugby league.

It's pretty sad that so many seem unable to give any credit to what in any other sport would be seen as a monumental achievement by a special group of players. Sport is about the big day, the big moment and being able to do it when it matters. As great as Wigan were I'm sure they don't see the two seasons where they became Champions on points difference as their greatest moments.

Do you think Wakefield should hand back the two Championships they won in the 60's then?

You can see that there is a huge paradox there.

Fair enough.

I prefer the play-offs because the league only measures who can buy the biggest squad (and then go bankrupt a few years later).

If it's always the same team, the latter. The undefeated record would be nice to have in the history books, but can you really call a team great if it hasn't won any meaningful silverware. In your hypothetical example, Leeds have won very littel of meaning having focused their effort in the wrong places, the other side (if you do mean always the same team)has just won an unprecedented 8 league championships.

You might argue that the unbeaten record itself would mark the team out for greatness I suppose, but it wouldn't detract form the achievements of the champion side. To me that unbeaten record for no silverware would be a bit of an embarrassment. A decade of choking.

As said above, change the rules and you might well find that this Leeds side changes what it does. But the rules are there and everyone has to play to them. Playing to some different ones because you don't like the actual ones doesn't make you great. It makes you foolish.

I don't think that's a paradox. Unless you're being a bit loose with some definitions.

It could be seen as self-contradictory only if the difference between the two wasn't clearly written in the operational rules for the competition. They are two distinct things, with distinct definitions and more weight given to one than the other.

That isn't a paradox.

As I've already said elsewhere, if it's so easy to win this 'cup competition', then maybe someone else should win it once in a while.

The Goal of both the Challenge Cup Comp and the Super League Comp is to reach the Final and Win it.

We are reaching Finals and achieving 50% of what we set out to do.

All the 27 Rounds are designed for is to position yourselves into the best league position to achieve winning the Final.

Wigan and Wire had an easier Run in the Playoffs and we still destroyed them.

Stop the Belly Aching and just admit that Leeds Rhinos are the most successful Club in Super League History. And all this by staying within the Salary Cap Rules and raising ourselves above the Hate and Jealousy.

Wigan Fans are they are so arrogant and live in a Fairytale Bubble. They hate it when we pop it.

To point at only the last two seasons as means of deciding whether to call this crop of players a great team seems shortsighted to me. The spine of this team has not only won the GF from 5th 2 years on the bounce, but has also won 3 consecutive GF as well as another one, all having contested 7 of the last 9 Finals. As well as CCFinals along the way.

Indeed. The words "icing" and "cake" spring to mind.

When you've done it the conventional way from the top 2 a few times, it probably gets boring. We need a challenge, so we thought we'd have a go at winning from 5th a few times.

Next year: 8th.

I really hope not. It's nasty watching some of those performances mid season. I'd like to see more consistency next year, but still some peaking toward the end to complete another back-to-back-to-back.

Amongst all that excitement I also forgot the World Club Championships!?!
Yeah we are a bit rubbish really aren't we.