The point I was originally making was when you said that Saints 05 and 07 were not anywhere near as successful so Saints 06 couldn't be considered "the best". Had Saints 05 not had a spate of injuries at the end of the season, they'd have had a great chance of taking the GF. And aside from the GF in 2007 (where they deserved to lose as they had a very poor day and Leeds a great day), they'd have won even more that year than the previous year.

I never once said that had it not been for injuries, they would have won. That was your interpretation to make an easy argument. The fact that you're still going on about something I've never said shows your stubbornness to accept that you're arguing with yourself.


I can't believe I have to spell this out for you!
It was controversial that he didn't check that the players were onside himself. If he had, he'd have seen that Tansey was offside.
It was further controversial that he didn't check with the VR that they players were onside, as he hadn't checked himself.

Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean that a) it hasn't happened (because it has!), and b) it isn't controversial.

I thought you were just taking the mick at first, and then being difficult, but it really appears that you just don't understand that a controversial incident is something that causes disagreement. The fact that the referee didn't himself check or use assistance to check that a runner for the ball was offside goes against his job. In fact, Ganson himself even admits he should have used the video referee. The man in question disagrees with you!


The fact that the first sentence is a straw man makes the rest of this pointless.


It is not wrong for us to hold our own personal opinion of the value of a trophy.
It is however wrong to state that your own opinion is a fact, and then disregard other people's opinions if they disagree.
I really can't spell it out any clearer for you. I get the feeling you understand clearly what I mean, but are just repeating yourself because you can't argue it. If you can't understand that your opinion of the value of the SL trophy isn't the same as mine and that NEITHER OF US are wrong to have different opinions, then that's your issue.

IT IS NOT WRONG TO HAVE DIFFERENT OPINIONS AND VALUES.


Perhaps because it isn't the same as what I've said? Perhaps because it is a misrepresentation of what I have said in order for you to create an easy argument.


Yes I do need you to point it out. I would like you to quote which post it is I said it. I think this will go a long way into you realising why you are fighting a straw man, because you won't be able to find it.


The scenario where you had created a straw man argument and accepted that was right do you mean?


Let's not try and deflect from the argument by being patronising just because you've been found out. If you'd like me to show you posts from years ago where I have used the term "straw man" I will do, but I don't believe you are that pathetic so we shall move on.


I haven't presented it as fact. I've very clearly expressed it as an opinion. If someone wants to value the Lazenby Cup, that is their choice and they are not wrong to do so.
You however have said that I am wrong to believe that Leeds' 5 SLGF wins in 7 years doesn't supersede every other clubs achievements because you believe that the SLGF means a lot more than any other trophy. Because you are saying I am wrong, you are dressing up your opinion as a fact. It is not a fact.


You could argue that the SLGF is giving a trophy to the qualifier for the WCC.
You can argue it all you like. It's what makes your opinion of it, and that is fair enough. But that doesn't make it a fact. It just helps add credibility to your opinion. There are arguments for and against that are just as credible and based upon people's values which is why people have different opinions and why everything isn't black and white.

The reason this discussion has broken down is simply because you cannot differentiate what is your opinion and what is a fact, and in an attempt to disregard my opinion (and attempt to "prove" your "fact"icon_wink.gif, you have created your own arguments by misrepresenting mine to argue with and even when corrected, go back to the same straw man. Once you can see this, the discussion should really just end with "each to their own".

Very good point!

They only went over it though due to bonuses paid to two players because of a hastily arranged international that year that they couldn't have budgeted for. It would be like disregarding Leeds' achievements in 2004 because the RFL decided to play extra internationals mid season and they had to pay out extra bonuses as a result of this. I wouldn't say it was significant enough to take away from their achievement IMO.

Smokey,

Thought I'd also add that you haven't won 5 out of 7 Championships.

2011 Leeds, 2010 Wigan, 2009 Leeds, 2008 Leeds, 2007 Leeds, 2006 Saints, 2005 Bradford.
That is very much 4 out of 7.

I know I am biased so take that into consideration but the reason why I refer to the Saints team of '06 is because they set a defensive benchmark that hasn't been close to being touched since. Leeds' achievements have been beyond great, truly they have been [iTHE[/i team over the past five or six years. However, I remember that '06 season very well and a defensive determination shown by Saints that hasn't been replicated by anybody. Nathan Brown almost had Huddersfield defending in a similar manner when he first arrived but sadly the Giants weren't able to keep it up for the entire season and they lacked the attacking power of Saints to go with it.

For me, it's that kind of distance in quality that can't be measured by referring to the closeness of the title race or even what the competition was because I simply remember how in-your-face that defence was and how crushing it could be. Hull FC produced a similarly powerful and destructive team (I mean that in a positive way) that pushed Saints all the way but when I saw that '06 Saints team play there was everything that winning sides possessed plus a defence which hasn't been matched since. It's that difference that's the same when I refer to the 92-93 pies. They have had more successful squads than that but the team from that year (I'm actually thinking that the year before team may even have been better) was a formidable outfit, holding out against probably the strongest challenge they experienced during that dominant run. The team from the year before really crushed teams though so perhaps I should be mentioning them more than the 92-93 bods.

Graeme Lowe set a new standard for defensive quality when he arrived and the teams that followed were a year on year improvement to the last until John Monie left. When he left the wins kept coming but the invincibility factor was never as strong and that is what makes a great team for me. When I think of the great teams I think of teams that not only can pull out the last minute wins, it's about when you go into games thinking "We'll be lucky to get a sniff here" and there aren't many Super League teams you could say that about. It's also why I'd put the Bulls of '97 up there as one of the top three teams of Super League as well. They were unstoppable with the awesome foursome, unbeaten as well IIRC, until the final two games when they'd already wrapped the league up. Up to that point nobody looked like beating them.

So what you seem to be sayiing is that [iHad Saints 05 not had a spate of injuries at the end of the season, they'd have had a great chance of taking the GF. And aside from the GF in 2007 (where they deserved to lose as they had a very poor day and Leeds a great day), they'd have won even more that year than the previous year[/i. But you are definitely not saying [ihad it not been for injuries, they would have won[/i? If you want to pretend there is a meaningful seperation between you saying 'if A happens B would have a great chance of happening' and me saying 'it was a myth that A was the reason B didnt happen' then you would be talking nonsense. Let me bit clear for you. It is a myth that injuries stopped Saints qualifying for the GF. It is a myth that if it werent for injuries they would have had a great chance to reach the GF, they already had a great chance. It is a myth that injuries were the defining reason Saints didnt qualify for the GF. It is a myth that the reason saints didnt qualify for the GF was injuries. It is a myth that saints would have qualified if it werent for injuries. It was not a myth that Saints had injuries and didnt qualify for the GF, like it isnt a myth Leeds and Bradford had injuries and did qualify.
As i said. I dont think a referee not doing something i have never seen any referee do in my life is controversial.
I never said he shouldnt have done it, or that the decision wasnt wrong, just that its pretty obvious and not controversial that he didnt do something he hasnt ever done before.
It isnt a straw man. You have used injuries as an excuse for Saints not winning. In what is almost internet-breaking irony your hiding behind the accusation of a 'straw man argument' has in and of itself become a straw man argument. Well done!

So its what your saying is that different people value different trophies differently and it is wrong for us (as in me and you) to decide some are more important than others. At what stage will it sink in that i am saying the same thing as you just a little more succinctly? Is there any clearer I can be? You value some trophies higher than i value them, it would be wrong for me to apply the criteria i used to decide what trophies had what importance because you are able to decide your own criteria. You know, like we (different people) value different trophies, differently, and it would be wrong for us to decide which are more important.

ok, look in your last 3 posts.
i honestly dont know how i can be clearer with it.
Lets try and start from the beginning again. If we accept that whoever can decide whichever trophy hold whatever importance whenever they like, or different people value different trophies differently and one person, or a number of people (like us, me and you) shouldnt decide which are more important than others.


You however have said that I am wrong to believe that Leeds' 5 SLGF wins in 7 years doesn't supersede every other clubs achievements because you believe that the SLGF means a lot more than any other trophy. Because you are saying I am wrong, you are dressing up your opinion as a fact. It is not a fact.'"

I think Leeds 04 set the benchmark in attacking play as Saints 06 did defensively. The only reason i could downplay the 06 saints is their competition in 06 was as poor as it has been in a long time. Bradford had fallen to pieces. Controversy at the start of the season meant Leeds imploded, christ we were that bad Wire won a play off game. A fairly workmanlike Hull side got to a GF and were in my opinion the worst side to get to a GF.
Who would win between Leeds 04 and Saints 06? i have no idea. It would be a game i would love to see but i have no idea who would have won.

Honestly Smokey, I can't be bothered anymore. I still can't believe you're sticking with your fact as opinion, and still have misrepresented what I have said. But no matter how much I continue, this won't change so I'll leave it there on that.

One thing I can 100% tell you that you are wrong about is that Leeds haven't won 5 championships out of 7.

No, it was 5 of 8, appearing in 6 of 8. My sincere apologies.

And i havent misrepresented what you said and you know it.

I disagree. I think it's a fact that Saints would have made the Grand Final had it not been for the injuries at such a crucial time. Im not one for if's and buts but they were dead certs imho, they nearly did it with half a team

Bulls '97 IMO was one of the worst SL winning teams. Brute strength plus Robbie Paul, and didn't win a single game in the expanded WCC competition. They didn't even have to win a grand final, and completely fell apart in 1998.

You can't say it was a fact for sure, let's be fair. For all we know, they could have had two complete off games. I don't think they would have, but it's not a fact.
Smokey thinks they'd have lost either way though, so that must be a fact.

I'll tell you what is FACT. These greatest teams will never play each other, so we will never know.

Fact number 2.... this decent thread has been ruined by you muppets having a willy measuring contest over nothing.

Fact number 2 isn't a fact, it's an opinion
But it's good to know that you've decided to whack a ruler next to yours just then to show you're the bigger man. Well done.

If someone says something I disagree with, I'm entitled to disagree with it. It was on topic. It was discussing the best English club team of all time. If you don't like it, scroll past it. Don't go throwing petty insults our way as that is what ruins a thread.

You're missing my point. It was a Smokey fact.

Indeed. Which is massively different to an [iactual[/i fact.