But we didn't win the comp on that did we? We had to win a knockout game and then a Final so I'm really not sure what your point is here. If it is that we played less games so we were fresher then I've argued against that with the CC run, whether its a different comp or not its still extra games.

It would be an advantage if we finished top of the table due to a skewed win percentage, played less games and then were awarded the trophy but it wasn't like that.

I give Saints huge credit for building this side under this salary cap and for keeping it mainly together. It’s something we cannot seem to do and there’s no doubt that frustrates all Wigan fans. Ultimately though it’s a level playing field now and it was a level playing field in the late 90’s/early 2000’s. Even with a cap some spend more than others, just as they did back then and I don’t place any higher value in success now than I would’ve done then.

The matter is subjective as you say but unless there is a real surge in the overall quality of this league, this Saints side could make it 4, 5, 6 or whatever titles in the trot and I still won’t have it as the best superleague side ever or even the best Saints side. I mean look at the comparisons-Lyon or Percival? Newlove or Hopoate? Long or Dodds? Sculthorpe or Knowles? A prime Cunningham and a prime Roby working together or a 36 year old Roby and Lussick?

We couldn’t win a title in those early 2000’s with a side containing Radlinski, Jason Robinson, Connolly, Steve Renouf, Adrian Lam, Terry Newton, Craig Smith, Andy Farrell etc. That lot would fold this current Saints team in half as well. That isn’t disrespectful, it’s just how it would be.

The game over here has gone backwards for years, in the main our better players have headed off to Australia and we’re at a stage now where the quality is pretty low in general. So if you think people think Saints are ‘the best of a bad bunch’ I’d say you’re on the right lines unfortunately.

On the plus side for Saints they are showing exactly what can be done even in times like these. You can build a high quality side, even with all the disadvantages this comp has and I really hope Saints get the credit they’ll deserve eventually for raising standards over here. Teams need to be forced to raise their games and Saints will absolutely make any side who wants to be successful do that.

It's really simple; In order to have an even competition all teams would have to play the same number of games. Are you disagreeing with this statement?

Different competitions are irrelevant to the competition we're discussing. No one is challenging your Challenge Cup victory. All the Superleague teams were set the same challenge to win that competition and you came out on top. That can't be said of the League. Surely you must recognise this?

It's really simple; In order to have an even competition all teams would have to play the same number of games. Are you disagreeing with this statement? If it was the team finishing top of the table wins it then I would agree with you. The fact remains that us playing less games didn't win us the trophy due to that. It merely enabled us to qualify for the play offs which we then had to win a knockout game and a Final to lift the trophy. Or do you not agree with that?

The point I made about the CC win was that you then can't say "you played less games so were more fresh than other teams"

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Are you saying that had Saints played another couple of games then the rest of the league would have been more competetive with Saints and Catalans? If not, what is your point and how is it relevant to the SL win?

You make some valid points no question. On a personal level I agree that the Saints side of 2000-2002 was arguably our best ever in terms of quality, skill level etc. Although played in a completely different era, if the two sides played each other hypothetically then I think the 2000 side wins.

That is why I mentioned the statistics part. Whether you like it or not or even agree, if we do win 4 in a row then this team will undoubtedly be referred to as the best in SL History.

On a different note its certainly nice to debate when done constructively.

This thread is now approaching 100 posts, it was about 10 on Saturday night

Teams playing a different number of games had little bearing on the Saints trophy wins for me. I thought the whole non selection of Saints players for the Exiles team and England pull outs was a bit naughty though tbh, as was the post cup final ‘Covid outbreak’ and one of the reasons for that is Saints are that far in front of everyone else, I didn’t think stuff like that was needed and lacked a bit of class. Saints could’ve won the lot last year without Woolf playing those sort of games.

Well that's exactly the point; we'll never know as it didn't happen. Had you played the extra couple of games and lost several players to injury, for example, would that have affected your playoff chances? Again, we'll never know as it didn't happen but I'd suggest that there's a fair chance it would have, especially given results when you do play a weakened team.

It's really simple. The competition wasn't an even one . The 2 finalists gained an advantage by playing fewer games in that competition. They're just statements of fact. No one can say what would have happened had that not been the case. Perhaps the result would have been the same, perhaps not. What isn't in doubt, though, is that it wasn't an even competition. As I say, that's just a simple statement of fact.

At Saints it might be but in general, I can’t see it.

I liken your situation currently to that of Celtic in the Scottish Premiership a couple of years back. I have a Cousin in Ireland who loves them. He goes over for every home game and was buzzing around the time of them winning the treble treble, going for ten titles in a row etc. Similar comments about being the best of all time, being history makes was being thrown around but the truth? They were dominating a dreadful competition. They could win 50 titles on the trot if the quality stayed as it is currently (or was at that time) and they still wouldn’t be the best ever. The Celtic side of the current day and from that time they did the treble treble would lose against the Celtic side of the early 2000’s (containing a prime Henrick Larsson) and co by 4 or 5 goals every week and the Lisbon Lions team wouldn’t break a sweat, so it might be a statistical best in the superleague era but the reality is it just isn’t as valuable because of the standards being so low across the board.

I'm not sure why Stu is so keen for accreditation of the current team from elsewhere, he should just enjoy the moment

The game is very different and I can see from the evidence of my own eyes that previous Saints teams would struggle to break this one down. It certainly wouldn't be the cakewalk some are suggesting - I've seen enough superstar Saints teams destroyed by NRL teams to know that they weren't up against that much in terms of week to week intensity at the time.

For sure we have had better individuals since 1996 but that isn't everything. And in any event, winning 4 will be a tremendous achievement - whether or not this is the best team SL has seen (I'd say not), winning 4 is something nobody has ever managed and would be, as a matter of fact, the longest winning run in fully professional RL history.

Behave.

Amazing achievement, but its a sub-standard competition.

Saints won both competitions last season and played 27 games. Just in Super League and the playoffs alone they played less games than five other teams.

Wigan won f*** all, didn't make either semi final and played 28.

In a standard season when you win the double, you usually end up playing 5 or 6 more than most teams and play every week from February to October. That didn't happen last year. We played 35 as a comparison in 2013.

The issues that happened last season (and maybe even the one before) were of a benefit to that Saints side no doubt. Had every team played the same number of matches to qualify as happened in football then fair enough.