Personally I don't think they were the best ever team, but certainly up there. For me it's the John Monie Wigan team.

What the Trinity of the 1960's were IMO was the most famous and glamerous RL team ever. Partly due to the way they played, the trophies they won - but also the film, the water splash final and it's place in sporting history and that they were the best team in what many consider the best decade in history. It all helps create a legend.

It was a trip, not a high tackle. We were done against Wigan at home for an alleged high shot by Darren Wright of all people (never cast as much as an angry glance in a Widnes shirt) 2 years later which in a lot of Widnes fans eyes cost us a 3rd title in 4 seasons by turning the game in Wigans favour after us being in control.

I'd also go for Widnes 89. Speed, skill & steel. Absolute joy to watch players like Myler, Offiah, Davies, Tait, Sorensen, Grima, McKenzie, Currier, Wright, the Hulme brothers et al.

I haven't read the full thread, but in my time the best would have to be the Wigan team that Gene Miles played in. I think that was the team that put Offiah in for 10 tries v Leeds in a Premiership semi.

Watched rugby a number of yrs so some great teams in the 80's for my club Hull, but for me it has to be the Saints team of 2006, that really was a special team.

The Team of all talents - huddersfield - 1914/15 won all four cups.

Did you get any clips on your mobile

Gotta be the Saints 06 team. Absolutely brilliant.

Like I said, I didn't say Saints had walked the league or would walk the league had they not had their injuries. I said they'd have been more likely to had they not had so many key injuries. That's not a myth. (And not more likely than Bradford or Leeds, but more likely than themselves without the injuries). The fact that they finished top by a fairly clear margin a week before the end of the season shows that they were certainly favourites with the team they had.
That doesn't mean they deserved to win, but it is certainly not a myth that they would have performed better had they had many of their first team players available to them.


I've seen a penalty kick that resulted in a try go to the video referee before. Ironically, that was also Leeds.
I don't see why this matters though. The wrong call was made.


It was rubbish to suggest that Leeds 2005 were two wins off being as successful as Saints 06. They weren't. It was a completely incorrect thing to say. They didn't even win the LLS, and were 3 points behind with one round still to go.
I didn't say that that trophies and awards were the only things that define a great team. But they are definitely a part of it. You can call the awards "nonsense" all you like, but the idea of an award is that it is a group of people's opinions.


Not all players value the same thing. Some want as many trophies as they can. Is one SLGF win greater than 2 LLS and 2 CCs? How many Leeds players would give up one of those SLGF wins for a CC win?
Just because you don't value the LLS doesn't mean others don't. Players certainly do. I remember reading a Jamie Peacock column in 2009 saying that Leeds need to prove a point by winning the LLS. Why would he say that if he didn't value it? It's a trophy. It's like saying the SLGF is worth nothing because it's a qualifying competition for the WCC.
And if the LLS was the championship, who isn't to say that the team at the top wouldn't have tried harder also? It works both ways. I think that both teams will have still been motivated enough to want to top the pile, get an easier fixture in the play-offs and win the LLS.

I didn't realise I'd messed up with the years. I included this season for Leeds, so 7.5 years.
Saints 2000-2007: SLGF wins x3, WCC wins x2, CC wins x 4, LLS x 4. Total = 13 (Finals: SLGF x 4, CCF x 5. Total = 9)
Leeds 2004-2011: SLGF wins x 5, WCC wins x2, LLS x2. Total = 9 (Final: SLGF x 6, CCF x 3. Total = 9)

And just for comparison, Bradford 1999-2006: SLGF wins x 3, WCC wins x3, CC wins x 2, LLS x3. Total = 11 (Finals: SLGF x 6, CCF x 3. Total = 9)

Leeds have won the most GFs over a short period of time, that I will give them. But in terms of overall success, I'd still go with Saints, and arguably Bradford were. But there's no point in discussing this with you further if you are going to say your opinion is fact. I am not wrong.

It means nothing, because we didn't do it, but reading some of the arguments in this thread made me realise that Bradford were 9 points away from being Champions 5 years in a row from 01 to 05 (lost Gf's by 1 & 8 points). Pretty impressive record if going on more than just a season in isolation.

What counts against Saints 06 for me is that the competition that year was extremely weak. The Bradford team broke up after the 05 final, Wigan were a mess and Leeds imploded. A distinctly average Hull team were the nearest competition.

As Saints hadn't won the title for 4 years before 06 and haven't since it's hard to say that team was as good as others who dominated the championship over longer spells.

We're the rest of the competition weak? Or just weak in comparison? You could say the same about any season with a team that convincingly wins the LLS.

Saints hadn't won the GF for 4 years, but they'd win the LLS the year before, the CC the year before that and both the LLS and CC for both years following. I think it's fair to say that that squad had a few years of success!

Agree. That distinctly average Hull side weren't exactly embarrassed in the GF that year either, unlike Saints the following year against Leeds. Saints of 2006 were the archetypal flat-track bullies. Largely reliant on scoots, fast play-the-balls and piggy back penalties. No real pace or threat in the backs apart from Lyon.

I'm sticking with Bradford '03 as the best in the SL era.

Leeds were pretty good in 04 but still had a bit of a soft underbelly, and only just edged Bradford in the GF that season. Leeds 2007-2008 were probably a better all-round team - a bit less skill and more toughness.