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.

Best I've seen prior to SL was the 92-93 Wigoon team. Doraghy/West's teams may have won more but there was a true quality to that team which featured many players at their very best i.e. Hanley, Gregory. For SL era, the 2006 Saints which may be biased although their record speaks for itself, won everything bar four games which were decided by 1,2,3 and 4 points IIRC.

I suppose at any one time we only ever have 1 or 2 great teams.
Imagine a league with Bradford 03, Saints 06, Leeds? (one of the last few years) and Wigan this year.

I still say Saints 06 where something special.

You seem to be conflating two different things. St's being better with all their players available as opposed to losing some, which is a self-evident fact, and that they would have performed better in the play-offs had they had a full squad to choose from. I dont believe they would. I think both Leeds and Bradford would have won. St's had peaked too earlier and Leeds and Bradford were very very good side. It is a myth to say that St's would have performed better in the play-offs but for terry newton.
I would probably say that something I have only ever seen happening once in my life, not happening, wasnt particularly controversial.
Leeds 05 would have won the GF, LLS and CC had it not been for injuries. Making them as successful as St's 06. There we go Leeds 05 were the greatest team ever but for injuries at the key part of the season

So you accept that Saints would have been better had they had a full squad. This is what I was getting at.
I never said Saints would have won. You have translated it to mean that. I think they'd have won, just my opinion. Had they had a full squad, they may still have lost. But they'd have certainly performed better and had a much better chance of winning.


The fact that a try was given when it shouldn't have been is controversial. The fact that it changed the result of the game makes it more controversial. If you don't agree with that, you're either being difficult or just don't understand what controversial means.


Absolutely shocking effort of an argument. Usually expect better from you. You've created a straw man argument.


Again, another straw man argument.

I didn't say it was wrong to say one trophy is worth more than another. I said it was wrong to pass that off as fact and not opinion. You are perfectly entitled to have the opinion that winning 5 SL trophies + 4 others is worth more than winning 3 SL trophies + 10 others. It shows that you value the SL trophy one hell of a lot more than any other trophy (at least 3 times more than any other trophy). And that's fine, that's your opinion. But it doesn't make it fact. I also value the SL trophy more than the others, but I think 4 CCs and 2 LLSs is better than 2 SL trophies alone (which ultimately is the difference between Saints' best 7 years and Leeds' best 7 years).


Because they are not open to everybody, so I don't consider them as any considerable value (as does nobody else, which is why they aren't considered a major trophy by anyone). A trophy doesn't have value if you just make it up for your team and another team to play in. I'm guessing this was a poor attempt at an argument based on the straw man from before?

When you've finished creating your own things to argue with, perhaps you'll actually argue the points I've made!

See there you go again, conflating those two different things. It is self evident fact that St's would have had a better squad to pick from without injuries. The same as it is self evident fact Leeds and Bradford would have had better squads to pick from. It is a myth that St's without injuries would have had a better squad to pick from than Leeds or Bradford. Not really, plenty of wrong decisions are made. Not checking the VR for offside a kick isnt a controversial decision. The fact a try was scored after the hooter, to win a game, from a penalty is controversial but not really any of the decisions that led to it.
It is, the same argument you have made for St's 05.
you have simply repeated the same thing i put. That different people value different trophies differently and it is wrong for us to say one is more important than the other. How you thought that was a straw man, when it was your own argument i dont know.


I tried arguing the points you made, you seemed to think your own points were straw men.

I agree, the lazenby cup and festive challenge arent as important as SL. Just as the LLS isnt important because it is a trophy made up and given to the team leading part way through a season when different teams have played other different teams, a different amount of times.

Wow. The fact that you are still trying to argue that that is what I've been saying makes this a pointless exercise to continue.
Keep fighting that straw man.


So do you know what controversial means? Or are you just being difficult? Again, no point in continuing this one.


No it isn't. Quote me once saying that Saints would have won the GF had it not been for injuries.
The fact that you have misrepresented what I have said into something that is easy to argue against is another straw man for you to argue with.


No I haven't. I have said it is wrong to pass your opinion off as fact and other people's opinions that differ as wrong.
You can have whatever opinion you want on whatever trophies you value. It's not wrong. And because my opinion differs, I'm not wrong.

Where have I said it's wrong? Again, quote me, or else you're fighting another straw man.


A "straw man" in this sense is a misrepresentation of a person's argument to make it easier to argue against. This is exactly what you have done several times. You've either tried to argue the points and failed to understand them, or changed the points to make them easier to argue. Either way, you've failed to argue the points.


You mean like the Challenge Cup? And the play-offs?
You can try and talk down the LLS all you like, but many many people find it a valuable trophy to win. Some find it even more important an indicator of who the best side is that year than the GF. You may disagree with that opinion, and you are entitled to, but that doesn't make it wrong.

Im not trying to argue that is what You have been saying. That’s what I said was a myth. Its what I said was a myth at the start, it is what I presume you argued against. If you have decided that your argument is and always was the self-evident fact that St’s would rather not have players injured but it is irrelevant to who would have won the GF in 05 then you picked a very od and obvious argument.
I do know what controversial means. It seems you think it was controversial that Ganson didn’t refer an offside from a penalty to the VR. Something I have never seen a ref do. I think it was controversial that a try was scored after the hooter, to win the game, from a penalty kicked which bounced off the crossbar.
You used the injuries as an excuse for them not winning. That is pretty much the same as saying they would have won if it weren’t for said excuse. If you aren’t saying they would have won but for your excuse. You would have no reason to make your excuse. St’s didn’t win because their squad wasn’t good enough.

So in other words, people value different trophies differently and it would be wrong for us to decide some are more important than others.

You can dance round that as much as you like, we can say the same thing in a different way if it makes you feel better. But this is your argument, im not sure why your argument is a valid when you say it but a straw man when I repeat the same thing back to you.


where you have said what is wrong? Where you have said it is wrong for us to decide one trophy is worth more than an other? You really need that pointing out?

I havent misrepresented your argument, i accepted it. I moved passed it and posed a scenario where we accepted your argument was right. We accepted thatDifferent people value different trophies differently and it would be wrong for us to decide which are more important.

I know someone has taught you what a straw man is recently, but there is no need to try and shoehorn it in to all your posts.



Some people value the lazenby cup and festive challenge.

It is your opinion that because not every team is involved in it and it was made up for a game between two teams it wasn’t important, but that is your opinion presented as fact. A little hypocritical there.

Also the CC and GF have finals which are the culmination of the competitions. The analogy with the LLS would be giving a trophy to the team who scored the most points in the QF round because they ‘won’ the qualifying competition for the next round. Or giving a trophy to the winner final eliminator for ‘winning’ the qualifying comp for the GF

with all the talk of saints in 2006 being the best of all time(excuse me if someone has pointed this out and i missed it), does the fact they breached the salary cap that year not exclude them as they had an unfair advantage over everyone who didn't Quote: St Helens agree with and accept the penalty of a £22,000 fine for breach of the salary cap in season 2006. Read more: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyl ... z1v960jIJ9 '" :jjq84j78] "A club spokesman said: "St Helens agree with and accept the penalty of a £22,000 fine for breach of the salary cap in season 2006. Read more:

with all the talk of saints in 2006 being the best of all time(excuse me if someone has pointed this out and i missed it), does the fact they breached the salary cap that year not exclude them as they had an unfair advantage over everyone who didn't Quote: St Helens agree with and accept the penalty of a £22,000 fine for breach of the salary cap in season 2006. Read more: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyl ... z1v960jIJ9 '" :jjq84j78] "A club spokesman said: "St Helens agree with and accept the penalty of a £22,000 fine for breach of the salary cap in season 2006. Read more: