Don't always agree with Saints Fan, but agree 100% on this one.

In terms of just the super league then yes they are the the best team winning 6 times overall and the sucsess they have had in the last few years with the squad they have is amazing. To say they are the best in the super league era is wrong as the term super league era covers every competition and over the course of the super league ere we more than match up.

It depends how you define it. Is it a particular team from one season, or the era of group of players spanning a few seasons? is it on trophies overall throughout super league or titles? Is it based on who has done the double, or the individuals within the teams and how they performed? All/most of the above?

Theres lots of different parametres. On balance you'd probably have leeds 2nd behind saints due to overall trophies. But leeds have won more titles now and I've already seen it mentioned in the media that they are the most successful super league team, due to all those titles.

Some of saints teams of the past are remembered for their flair and outrageous tries. I think in years to come this current leeds team will be remembered for it's unwavering belief and mental toughness. I've lost count of the amount of times they've been in sticky situations, where most other teams would fade and they've somehow found a way out of it.

It's times like this that I almost wish I hadn't blocked her ramblings for the sake of my own sanity... I mean - "they're not the best team, they're just the best at winning trophies" My aching sides... Pure comedy gold...

While the is a play off system it obviously doesn't matter where you finish just as long as you make the play offs.

Every team knows the situation and its all about coming good when it matters. Warrington would IMO finished top of the league thus year if that's how you become champions but how do we know Leeds wouldbt go all out for top spot if that's what required to be champs.

It's no fluke that Leeds won it again.

I think everyone defines success in one way: winning silverware. Since we have won the most silverware so far in the superleague era, ergo we are the best team in the superleague era. That will change as time passes but just now we are still the best team in the superleague era.

Saints are still hanging on there as the greatest team in the super league era, its just that we have won a fat zero in the last 5 seasons. We are pretty close to having won twice as many trophies as Leeds. Think we have about 18 trophies in our super league history where Leeds I'm not sure but I think they have just hit double figures.

They'll be in the discussion with us and Bradford.

I think we have 12 now if we include the LLS and WCC

Just checked on Rugby League Project website yes you are on 12 trophy's in total.

Some more interesting Stats Leeds are close on Wigan for super league match wins. Saints 351 wins from 493, Wigan 331 wins from 493, Leeds 325 wins from 493. (Warrington not worth considering at the moment 233 wins from 46icon_cool.gif

So we've even got the most wins as well eh?

We're definitely still the best team in the Superleague era!

What about the "salary capped era".
Which teams come out on top then?

Probably us as well I imagine given that we're the only team to have finished in the top four every year since its introduction.

I was speaking in terms of a 'team' as a group of players. If we are talking as a club then Saints are still in there in the trophy running.

When you talk about a great team you tend to look at a generation of players, a cohort. The greatest cohort would be Wigan, when you look at how many trophies they pulled in with that generation of players. Of course there is turn over and from year to year some players drop in and out. But the main players tend to stay the same.

If you lined up the team of say Long, Scully et al, you would not include trophies won under previous players like prescott and Goulding. There is some cross over of course, but I think Saints because of their consistency have this cross over more than most. But I would not include the whole of our SL wins as a measure of a certain team (group of players).

For example the bulls had some great teams, as did widnes, but when you are looking at the greatest of all time you would not include times when those players were not playing. So the Bulls team up to 2005 would be in the running for the greats. Just because a different team and set of players have not carried on that mantle I don't think it reflects on the previous cohort of players.

So sorry for not being more narrow in my initial definition, but I was looking at the team as a cohort, not as a club. So for example in a school you will have a cohort of pupils. That cohort maybe the best in the schools history and give it results that top the tables. But it does not mean the school will have the best history of all schools.

So I did mean this Leeds cohort, not the club as a whole over the full 17years of SL.

In fact I have just looked back to my OP, and I did state at the time that I was talking about a squad of players, not the club itself.

It was others who started talking about club records.