They wouldnt, there were some god awful players around late 80's early 90's. Its easy to look like a world beater when you are playing against a panel beater.

How many panel beaters did that Brisbane side have in its ranks back in '94, or how many did you have in your line up for '94 and '95 Cup finals?....

That Wigan side of the early 90's, when put next to your present side, comes out on top in my eyes.....Yes, they did play against a weaker league in general, but there were still some very handy sides around who could test them, and more often than not they would come out on top.

They were players of their time, they didnt play the modern game so they didnt need the skills a modern day player has.

The tackles are harder, the players fitter, the game quicker, the gaps smaller, the defences better

Its all opinions I suppose, but just for starters, Offiah v Hall, Edwards v McGuire, Hanley v Sinfield.....You'd need a damn good argument to convince me that any of those 3 Leeds players come out on top in those match ups.

anyway to get back on topic
i have heard a rumour that wigan.warrington,saints and hull fc etc etc have finally grasped the concept of what it takes to be crowned the official sl champions, apparently you can actually finish anywhere between first and eighth

i anticipate more big time bottling by the top sides during the seasons finale as opposed to the side that knows how to perform when it matters

Except that its not. Your post is in fact completely ignorant of the difference between Super League and the NFL in terms of structure, namely that each of the respective NFL teams do not play every twice. That is the whole point of the play off system - to cater for the nuances in the schedules.

As for Leeds 'best team ever.' Not close. The Wigan 1994/95 side and Saints 2000 sides were markedly better in my opinion and oozed class. Quite how the OP team can compare a team that finishes 5th to those teams is quite frankly barmy.

This Leeds team (2012) is probably not as good as the sides you mention. The team in 2004 was arguably as good only losing 2 league games all season and winning the gf.
The fact that we have reached 7 of the last 9 finals winning 6 of them is a sign that although players and coaches have left and been replaced the core of the team are champions.

All done staying within the cap.

and???......

I agree, the Leeds team of 04 is criminally underrated IMO.

Nope I'm not ignorant to the differences - my point was made on the similarities that a team can be consistent all year but fall at the final hurdle. Regardless of the structure, I think it's a valid comparison. Probably even more so because the Patriots had already played and beaten the Giants in the regular season..... only to lose to them in the final.



And well done you've missed the point. Sinfield's Leeds won the league again - finishing 5th doesn't change that.

And that is the schoolboy error that all the other sides keep making. While they FINISH, Leeds carry on and win the trophy.

Leeds FINISHED as Champions. End of story.