RLFANS.COM - The World's Most Popular Rugby League Website

Quote: SmokeyTA "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.
'"

I aren't saying they should have won in 2005. I'm very much in agreement with you that injuries are part of the game.

I think it's a fair excuse though for their losses at the run-in. It's hard to recover from that many key injuries. And it's not a myth, unless you can prove that Saints wouldn't have won the SL had they not had the injuries. It's an opinion and a fair one at that shared by many.

Quote: SmokeyTA "a missed offside at a penalty? Not that dodgy
Quote: Wellsy13 "Rubbish! The 2006 Saints side finished top of the pile by 8 points. Leeds 05 finished 2nd in everything and were 3 points off the LLS. They were not two games different. They won zero of the 3 domestic trophies. For someone complaining of people talking down the efforts of other teams achievements, you've done a massive disservice to Saints 06 with that comment!'"
Im not doing any disservice to the Saints 06 comment. I'd suggest reading what i put in its totality if you came to that conclusion. I simply stated that St's winning those three trophies (and your nonsense of 'awards') didnt define them as a great team. I in fact used the fact that the 2005 Leeds side which lost both the GF and CC final as evidence of this as their success would have been the same yet the 2005 Leeds side werent as good as the 2006 St's side or the 2004 Leeds side.

Quote: Wellsy13 "The thread is about which year had the greatest club side. Whether you think that's nonsense or not isn't the point! It's not which club side was the best over a certain period!

I disagree that they were the most successful anyway.
From 2004-2012, they've won 5 SLGFs, 2 LLSs and 3 WCCs. They've lost 1 SLGF, 3 CCFs and 2 WCCs.
Saints from 2000-2008, Saints have won 3 SLGFs, 5 LLSs, 5 CCs and 2 WCCs. They lost 2 SLGFs, 2 WCCs and 1 CCF.

In terms of trophy haulage, league positionings, wins, I'd go with Saints. You might disagree, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong!'"
No you are wrong. You ask any player in the game what trophy they want to win, its the GF. It is the championship. You cant include the LLS, it is nothing, it is treated pretty much as nothing. Its no different to measuring who was top after 26 games, 13 games, 7 games,. We have an uneven regular season which is a qualifying competition. Between 2007 and 2009 a total of 0 pts seperated Leeds and St's, who is to say that if the LLS was the championship in the 2 seasons that St's won the league by a point Leeds wouldnt have tried a bit harder or peaked a little earlier to win that comp? Similarly who knows if St's would have pushed that bit harder in 2009?

Also, why have you counted 8 years for St's and 7 for Leeds?