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.

Fair comment that but the '06 Saints never lost a knockout game that year whereas Leeds '04 lost in the cup and in the playoffs too. They were pretty red hot though that year despite those losses.

Reading through his points, they're all myths