Leeds actually stated at the start of the season that the LLS was on their agenda

Maybe I should have wrote something like this that included the term "LLS win" to make sure it was specific......

"Had Wigan or Saints done what we did this year I'd still be saying their LLS win was a much better achievement than Huddersfield's."

Oh wait I did but you cherry picked 5 words out of the middle of it. Well done you.

They said that about everything. And went for the two.

Had Wigan or Saints done what we did last year, they would have won the treble, not just the LLS. You know the fog you were trying to introduce.

The treble was a much better achievement than Hudds winning the LLS.
Winning the LLS as part of a treble is a greater achievement than just winning the LLS
Winning the LLS now is not a greater achievement than winning it previously.

Whilst not wishing to prolong your somewhat tedious bitch fest obsession with Printer, given the alternative format provided by the Super 8's last season, your last statement is clearly incorrect.

The treble was a much better achievement than Hudds winning the LLS.
Correct
Winning the LLS as part of a treble is a greater achievement than just winning the LLS
Correct
Winning the LLS now is not a greater achievement than winning it previously.
Arguable but, IMO, a more difficult proposition now than in the old system

This is exactly how i see it

Apparently Huby has broke his wrist so won't be available for the Leeds game.....

No wife and no wrist, gonna a tough few weeks for him

how?

The idea sides 'wanted' it more doesnt hold any water when you remember we wouldnt even risk home advantage for it, but for the bounce of a ball Wigan would have pretty much won it by default last year.

Interestingly, Huddersfield not only earned more points than us in the Super 8s this year, but actually needed more points, in fewer games to win the title in 2013, and there were fewer points covering the top 8 (albeit 1 point) that year than this.

Very disingenuous & selective use of statistics I'm afraid - you need to do better.

In 2013 it was a 14 team league, the bottom 6 being Salford, London, Castleford, Wakefield, Widnes & Bradford.
In 2015 there were only 12 in the league. Further, for the last 7 games of the league the games were only against the other top 8 sides, removing the "whipping boy" bottom 4 clubs.

Just on the basis of logic, to play only 11 teams home & away (the 2 weakest from 2014 having been kicked out of the league), then to play the top 7 thereafter once (home or away) has got to be more difficult than playing 13 teams home & away - surely?

Of course it's harder to win the LLS nowadays. If the old system was in play, we would have won it comfortably. Every minute does matter now. Fortunately, we built up a great lead upto and including August which allowed us to drop points in September. Saints (top 4), Cas (their cup final), Catalan away (almost unbeatable there) and Hudds away (top 4) in September is a ridiculous run in. To come out on top after all that is unbelievable.

I might add that in a discussion about the difficulty of winning a league, what significance does a "bounce of a ball" have? Do you not think that in previous years there were close games decided by similar bounces of balls?

Also, what significance does getting more points in the Super 8s have? The LLS is awarded to the team with the most points after 30 rounds of matches, not what happens after the first 23 rounds.

What is selective or disingenuous about them? what statistics do you have that would contradict it?

On a more subjective basis Dont forget that a large amount of those super 8's games were dead rubbers for one of the sides, Wire were serving up some absolute dross, Hull FC won 1 game in the super 8s, and in my opinion the teams at the bottom of SL in 2015 were worse than those at the bottom in 2014, Wakefield were a free 4 points for pretty much every side and worse than London in 2013

but everybody else we were competing with had a similar run-in (and a few did better than we did)