Is it similar to losing battles but winning wars?

It's only surprising if you don't understand league tables or confuse the map and the territory.

Yes, because for most of our game's existence we've had a play off system which has been the true test of which is the best team

So you finally agree then that the league table now isn't the definitive list of which team is better than the ones below it.

Let me make this clear as you are clearly a bit dim. Right now we are 4th in the league which means it's fair to say at this stage we have been the 4th best side. If we are 6th after round 27 then we obviouxly can't claim to be the 4th best.

The facts are we were 12th last season and this season we are clearly going to finish in the eight and maybe even the six.

You don't like this becuase you don't like Agar and every post you make shows this. You constantly show yourself up with no help from anyone else.

You mean the play off system whereby you could have one bad game and be knocked out?

Surely then, by that logic, the challenge cup is the best indicator of the best team?

Also, you didn't answer my question earlier. After 19 rounds of fixtures are we not the 4th best team in the comp?

Me dim? that's an interesting one.

We're 4th in the league because we've amassed the 4th highest number of points to this stage. When the full season's fixtures has completed then there will be an argument to say that the finishing position of each team relative to others shows how good they are compared to each other (i'd be inclined to look at positions post play offs myself), but not with 1/3rd of the fixtures remaining.

Every team has had a different mix of fixtures to date so has had different opportunities to amass points.

Maybe we have a different definition of "best". My definition would be based on ability relative to other teams. We have a team sitting below us in the league who have stuck nearly 100 points on us in 2 games but are not as good as us by your measure. Likewise, warrington have done well against lower placed teams but been a complete failure against the teams around them, yet by your measure they are better than saints and leeds.

For the last 3 years, saints have been "better" than leeds, yet leeds have won the GF in those years.

If your mind is so closed as to only being able to interpret a list of names and numbers and taking this as absolute evidence of ability then I think you need to reassess who teh dim one is

I did answer your question, no we're not the 4th best team, nor are wigan the best, wire 2nd, saints 3rd etc. Once everyone has played all of their fixtures then we'll see. It maybe we'll finish 3rd or 6th, but will we be any better or worse at that point than we are now or will we still have the same players with the same strengths and weaknesses

You can argue until you're blue in the face mate but a league position at any point in the season doesn't necessarily infer it is an exact measure of how strong the team is in relation to others.

Maybe you can anser uncle junior's question about Hull City being the 6th best team in teh Premiership due to their league position

Has all this taken your mind off the improvements Hull FC have made this year on the pitch ?
Good idea - focus on something else it's not so difficult to accept then

You just reminded me. can you write one of your open letter/plea from the heart things to my bank manager. He's being a total tw@ and you're really good at them

No problem at all will help you out you know that. I know writing isn't your strength.

Unless of course you want me to argue that the balance of your account doesn't really reflect how much money you've got.
Now that would be a tricky argument.

This is quite confusing (looks for irony emoticon). Catalans - according to the OP are the worst team. Is that because of where they will finish at the end of the season or because of where they are now? And if Catalans were to win the CC (I think that's an out and out play-off competition isn't it?) would they be the best team in the league... or, in fact, would they be the worst team in the CC? Just how does it work, what with class being permanent (like Capello, I suppose)?

Looking at FC. What the league table shows is that they have the 4th best defence which is one of several reasons they are 4th in the table. The problem is that they only have the 6th best attack. If they improve this area whilst maintaining their recent improvement in defence, perhaps they can finish higher in the table than 4th. Not sure that will make them any better than they actually are though.