the problem, according to a first team regular, was smith stopped the rotation policy and flogged the players in training more or less every day. the players were shattered come the play offs.
the player said smith was the best coach he ever played under but couldn't understand why he hammered them that season

Bradford of 2003 is certainly a very good shout as the best team in SL. Daniel Gartner in particular was immense but never seemed to receive the appropriate accolades. Thought they were showing signs of being on the slide by 2005 despite winning SL that year... a final swansong if you like. I'd favour Bradford of 2001 over Bradford of 2005.

Saints were very good in 2006 and also at the start of the decade and a few years beyond (as Bradford were). When you consider the Bulls had players like the Paul Bros, Vainikolo, Vaikona, Vagana, Gartner, Lowes, Fielden, Peacock, etc,... then Saints with Sculthorpe, Long, Fairleigh, Albert, Shiels, Newlove, Britt, Gleeson etc... all in their pomp around that time, you realise how far standards at the top of SL have fallen. Even Wigan weren't too shabby back then despite not winning SL.

I'll rule out Leeds in 2005 on the basis they won nothing apart from a WCC against a disinterested half a reserve grade Bulldogs side who only decided to wake up when Bailey put in a cheap shot which riled SBW and generated a quickfire 24 point response. Leeds were a better side in 2004.

Current SL playing standards are depressingly mediocre in comparison.

The Hetherington/Caisley ing contest was an embarrassment according to the wise and entertainingly significant according to the majority t brigade. In the long run, there were no winners of that spat because Hetherington has now lost his beloved derby fixture.

I can think of a couple of legal firms who may disagree with that assessment.

That Saints side that took Leeds to the cleaners in consecutive Challenge Cup semi-finals early in the decade was pretty impressive and has a good shout for being the best of the SL era IMO.

Could've sworn we've been playing the Bulls at least twice a year since SL began.

Justice was the winner in that spat. Right prevailed.

Long article on squad recruitment in the YEP, and the only name we're linked with in it is Heath L'Estrange... bit.ly/kluhCm

Long article on squad recruitment in the YEP, and the only name we're linked with in it is Heath L'Estrange... bit.ly/kluhCm

Heath f-in L'Estrange

I agree. He's a feisty customer to boot.

Marginal 2001 vs 2003, although 2001 DID totally destroy the Pies at OT.

With that minor caveat, I agree totally with all of that. Especially about Sir Daniel Gartner. But I'm far from the only one to recognise just how immense and influential he was for us, and IMO he was one of our biggest losses at the end of 2003. And yes, for sure 2004 was very much "after the Lord Mayor's Show", and 2005 the swansong as the wheels were coming off financially by then. Indeed, we were outstandingly mediocre for the first half of the season, and only came good towards the end because the team framed themselves.

In the end, regardless of the rights and wrongs of it and how dumb Caisley was in provoking a fight, it was really financial might that prevailed.

Given the fact we have 2 hookers already in the squad as well as Liam Hood in reserve, it just seems a pointless signing to me, a centre and a new prop are more of a priority than another hooker. Is he quota?

If Buderus leaves, wouldn't be a bad signing to rotate with McShane. Sign him on a 3 year contract, by which time hopefully Hood will be able to come into the squad

If you're in the wrong, you're in the wrong, regardless of how much bigger your opponent is.

If Caisley and his legal advisors thought their case was water tight then they should have had the courage to believe that the court would have found in their favour. Financial might does not come into it. They knew they were wrong and tried to bluff with a poor hand and lost.

That's an extremely naive view of both the world of business and the legal system.

Principles and belief are all well and good, but they don't pay your legal bills and with any litigation (no matter how strong you believe your case to be) there's a chance you'll still lose. Had Bradford gone to court and lost, there's a very strong possibility that could have been the end of the club.

Had Leeds gone to court and lost, they would most likely have been left with some very large legal bills to settle but nothing that would have placed the long term future of the club in jeopardy.