I think you are doing a massive disservice to Leeds and Bradford and re-writing history a fair bit. The idea that in 05 St's were walking to the GF but only derailed by Terry Newton is a myth. In 2005 the GF was contested by the same Leeds side which had utterly dominated SL in 2004, and the Bradford side who were only 2 years on from their great side of 2003. These were two very good sides, the same two sides who had contested the GF the year before.

In 2007 they lost the GF to Leeds and won the league from them by a total of 1 point. Realistically Leeds had the same season as St's with us each losing one key game, we lost in the CC they lost in the GF.

I liked Workington Town 1979 era and Hull early eighties.Hull played some lovely football back then,full of running and backing up, wide balls,miss moves, interpassing,dummy runners,all done fluently and effortless .It was a pleasure to watch.

Again, the modern era is open for a lot of debate but the pre WW1 Huddersfield side dominated for a period of years, culminating in winning all four cups. And while some might say the war had an effect it can be pointed to their record prior to this suggesting they were utterly dominant and might have had several years of. The same

The Team of All The Talents, led by the Prince of s

I'd disagree with what you've said there on almost every level. It's only the last couple of years that we've been in any way off the pace and that any team could have any claim to be 'far better'. If that, and specifically our GF win of last year is what you're referring to then you have a point, as that is the only season when it can be claimed we didn't look a champion side, but I don't think you are.

Despite the constant attempts for history to be re-written, the incredibly talented and very successful Saints team were never 'far better' than Leeds, in fact the two teams were incredibly evenly matched as is demonstrated not only by the almost identical league points tally over the period, but also by the head to head record which is so well balanced it's uncanny. The fact that Leeds could do it over the season [iand[/i when it mattered is all that separates the two. Finishing top by a point or two in no way, shape or form can be construed as being 'far better'.

I'd also argue that succeeding so regularly in the face of serious competition and on a level playing field is a greater accomplishment than dominating in the manner that Wigan did when only Leeds could match their spending. That's not to undermine the excellent Wigan team of the era or their unparalleled domination, it's just difficult to say how good they were when you consider the level of competition they faced.

In answer to the original question - I'm going to be as biased as everyone else and say Leeds of 2004 - every game I was half-expecting us to win by 40 points that season, everything clicked.

Better than Wigan winning the WCC in Brisbane whilst carrying a load of injurys??????

I'm going to say Halton hornets U16s back in the halcyon days of the late nineties, when summers seemed to last for ever.

That Wigan team in 93 was the best I've seen. Simply brilliant.

They lost every game after that incident. They won the SL LLS a game in advance, but come the end of the season they had been decimated by injuries (partly thanks to Terry Newton). Look at the team they had in the play-offs. No Darren Albert, Sean Long and Lee Gilmour at the same time, on top of other injuries they had. They had to move key men around to operate, and most match reports you will read at the time will refer to Saunts squad at the time as "depleted".
I never said they walked the league. But they won it convincingly at the time (as they did the year after), before the last game.


They were very good sides indeed. Which makes Saints performances against them with a lot of their key men out very good, only losing by 3 points and 5 points.


It should have been 3 points had it not been to the dodgiest call in the SL era at the first MM

None of this hardly matters though. In 2006, Saints won everything. The four games they lost were by a grand total of 10 points. They were 8 points clear at the top, and won numerous awards outside of RL as well. The players they had in 2005 and 2007 were not the same, so I don't see why it counts against them.
Whilst Leeds dominated in 2004, they didn't manage to win the Cup as well, and didn't wipe the awards ceremony clean. They were not the greatest, but they were great.

So again, Saints 2006 for me.

Hull FC 2013

The OPs Widnes team was, I reckon, the paciest British club RL team I have ever seen. Whilst technically not the best RL team (they didn't need to be) they were the most exciting (and one of the most effective) in the last 50 years.

They lost 4 games (they lost in the Challenge Cup don't forget) and drew two, so over the season Saints 06 won more than Leeds 04.

When talking about winning everything, I include the CC, the RL awards (like you've said, such as the MoS), and also teo of the BBC awards. Only thing they didn't get was the Sports Personality of the Year award!

Had Leeds 04 won the CC, I'd say they were the greatest (I'm only going SL era as I haven't been watching earlier!). But they didn't.

All teams lose players through injuries. Bradford and Leeds were worthy grandfinalists. When it came to the crunch they were better than St Helens. You can make excuses for them if you want, buy into the mythology if you want but there is a trophy in Bradfords Trophy cabinet which says 2005 SL champions (if they havent sold it yet) there isnt one in St Helens.

Yet they lost. Like Leeds lost in the GF. Bradford had finished 7 points below Leeds in the league. No excuses need to be made. We dont need to hide behind losing Keith Senior to injury at the business end of the season, we dont need to highlight how much losing the CC final which we had made in 2005 (Which im sure you remember) took out of the squad. We lost because Bradford, who were a very good side, were better when it came down to it.