I agree with you 100% back then there were some quality players outside Wigan, that were better than any player you see in the league today: Schofield, Davies, Newlove (and one of either Offiah or Hanley depending on the era we're talking about).

Wigan always had good players but even then the squad on paper probably wasnt enough to win everything, but year after year Wigan were slightly ahead of the rest, and won the big games when it counted, the professionalism and attitude was off the scale, Wigan could always find a way to win. I think the most influential figures were Edwards and Bell, they were the heart of that drive and professionalism. Without them, Wigan back then would have been a side like Saints under Millward, a top team that won things, but didn't relentlessly monopolise all the trophies. But I think if an Edwards or Bell had got in to that Saints dressing room and brought the same culture to them, then the years from about 1999 to 2008 would have seen Saints win pretty much everything going.

"if" this is the worst team on paper to win the double it just goes to show how poor the rest of the teams and their coaches are in SL at the moment. This team had to beat the teams that finished 1st, 3rd and 2nd in the league in consequetive matches to achieve the Grand final win to complete the double.

Lets hope our squad next season is just as bad and the opposition are as good as they have been this year

Edwards and Bell and a few others hated to lose more than they liked winning! Or so it seemed at times. They certainly had a very determined attitude.

As a point about the grand final and this worst team thing, I was reading the Challenge Cup final program the other day and there is an article about when Featherstone beat Hull. They were not fancied at all and Hobbs said himself in the article it wasn't considered a great final quality wise [ibut he didn't care[/i. Did a poor team win a low quality final? Did he care?

I think people forget this aspect. Whatever debate goes on in forums like this at the end of the day if you get to a final and win it doesn't really enter your head about the quality of the game or the team. The GF was better than the CC quality wise but I really enjoyed the CC probably more than I did in 2011 for some reason I have not worked out (not that I didn't enjoy the GF or am saying I enjoyed the CC more BTW). Finals are about the occasion as much as the quality of the game or teams taking part.

IMO, this whole thing is nonsensical sour grapes.

Any of the teams who won trophies following the Wigan golden age - and that includes the indomitable Bradford and Saints sides of the 2000s - were a poor second compared to what had gone before. Nothing Britain has produced before or since could compare with the Wigan side that beat Brisbane in Aus. That Wigan team was freakish it was so good. The combination of talent and experience in one team will never be equalled. Even under John Dorahy as coach, it managed to win trophies. Even under-strength, they were too much for the Aussie champs.

But it's a pointless comparison. Another time, another place. Different social and economic circs etc. It doesn't mean anything. It's like saying the Spartans were better fighters than the SAS. There's no way to test it.

Most of the Saints fans' postings seem to be saying that Saints need to learn from Wigan. An attitude I endorse. They may not like it but they are being realistic. Their last super team wouldn't exist now as it was built around star-players, many of whom would probably be on their way to Union or the NRL (just as Wigan's 1994 vintage would have been). Wigan are leading the way in the current era, and Saints need to follow.

Saints team of 2006, which broke the salary cap btw, had no competition at all. Leeds were poor, Bradford were poor and Wigan were all poor that season. There biggest challengers were Hull with no GF experience at all and even they proved to be a one-season wonder. Any decent team would have wonthe double that year.

It's ok, normality will resume next season. The bookies have declared 2014 the year of the Wire by making them favourites to win the Grand Final, with St Helens (!!!) second favourites.

I did think this at the time and as Bilko said on twitter people were more interested in our great escape than their double.

We've been told we had the easiest cup draw ever but there's that year was similar.

They had Doncaster h, Bradford h, Catalans h, Hull KR and Huddersfield.

That's two championship teams and the 4th, 9th and bottom super league teams. They also only beat Hull in the play offs who, whilst good that year, are hardly play off veterans.

That's not to say Saints weren't great that year it's just that it can take some luck to do the double.

We did have an easier Cup draw than in the past.
I'm ok with that as I don't remember anyone saying we had a tough draw in 2011 when we beat Leeds in the Final, Saints in the semi and Wire at their place in the quarters.
The GF play offs we beat the other three of the Super League top four in winning the trophy. No easy draw there!
A great win and very well deserved!

In 2011 we had an harder CC draw than Leeds did to win the GF that year

What cladding

Correct and anyone who supports the play off concept can have no complaints over Wigan's win given we played and beat every team who finished above us in the league to get to and win the GF.

As to the CC if you get a lucky draw, you get a lucky draw. It's a pure knock out competition.

I can't remember what sort of luck we had with the CC draw in the 80's/90's so this years path to the CC will all be just the same and forgotten by history. The winners won't be.

We always seemed to have tough semi finals, though I think we played York in a semi once

We did. Then got murdered in the final by Widnes.

Was that '84? Thought it was more like 89! Will check Bilko's site later