Oh dear.

Lol at this thread, if wigan get the club call on picking who they want to play and say the last 4 is Wigan, Saints, Leeds & Wire, I'd want us to pick you lot every time, weakest of the lot easy.

Hope so!

Haven't we already beaten this new world power that is Wigan once this season?

Well done on confirming you know jack all about RL.

Warrington haven't beaten Leeds this season, it's 1-1 with Leeds v Saints. Leeds have already beaten Wigan in a game that meant something so don't count your chickens.

Whinos by name, whinos by nature.

Saints by plenty next week.

If leeds don't make it, (they won't) it would be bloody hilarious for it to be a saints wigan gf with saints losing for the 4th year on the trot.

But i really believe now it'll be saints wigan with saints winning.

I agree...and i don't.

week in week out, we haven't been as dangerous as wigan saints and warrington. But head to head we've won 4 from 7 meetings so far in all competitions. Warrington have a worse record having only got one win. That itself should indicate we are still a threat. To write us off totally is foolhardy.

Leeds have shown in recent seasons that they can rise to the challenge in adversity.

Going to somewhere like wigan and saints in the playoffs as underdogs is something that would bring the best out of leeds.

Whilst they probably won't win it this year, they won;t go away easily either as you seem to think.

All this thread is missing is a poster called Stirlingshire Pie.

Its slightly odd that wigan fans are assuming they'll be much stringer next year. If this year proves anything, its that a stronger squad on paper means nothing. Last year Leeds had a makeshift right centre and yet still managed to win the competition.

Its slightly odd that wigan fans are assuming they'll be much stronger next year. If this year proves anything, its that a stronger squad on paper means nothing. Last year Leeds had a makeshift right centre and yet still managed to win the competition.

'downslide'

Oh well

come back and gloat when you equal the superleague record of 3 x Champions on the trot that us Rhinos hold... and 4 x Champions out of the last 6... we may not win it this year but write us off at your peril.. You can't win it every year especially in a salary cap era, but we're a team of champions and a champion club, we won't be far off and we'll bounce back.

I think Saints are more deserving this year than any other year. Potter has done an amazing job for them this season. They have had as much injuries as any other team, lost players from previous years, and introduced quite a few youngsters, yet they remain more than competitive and have produced the goods when it has mattered so far.

I would really like to see Wire beat Saints in a big game, but would have not complaints if Saints got their success this year.

That's because some of your key men are getting long in the tooth and you haven't blooded enough kids to take over whereas Saints have; Wigan don't have many old players, have signed what appears to be quality and have plenty coming through and Warrington appear to be able to sign whoever they want within the cap.

It's also interesting that the top 3 is replicated (different order) in the u21 league.

Really... like who?

'Haven't blooded enough kids' I think you'll find that is complete horse pap you're talking there my friend. Mcshane, Ben Jones Bishop, Watkins, Hall, Smith, Clarkson, Burgess to name a few isn't bad.. we may be short on youngsters blooded in the prop department but the addition of young Ambler and Amor have addressed that.

Been pedantic here, but you need to get things right, and more so arguing with a Wigan fan.

Smith and Hall have been instrumental in our GF success, they are not young kids been bloodied lately.

With regards Amor he is not young, and he is actually a Wigan reject. Hence why when arguing with a Wigan fan, it needs to be correct facts.

Being pedantic but both players are under the age of 25. Counts as youngsters in my book.

Not in mine. How long are you a youngster for these days? Is Senior a youngster? Is Kirke a youngster? (both players have as much experience as Kirke, played as many and more games)

Well until about the age of 25. Because Smith and Hall have been blooded young and played well they suddenly aren't young? Does ability define age? What a load of balderdash.

We already have, but we won it 5 years on the trot:

1992-92, 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95, 1995-96

I don't need ot gloat though.

...such desperation to be proved right..

Age is irrelevant. You only have a certain time period for a career in this game. Number of games played would determine whether you are a rookie (youngster) or a veteran. Are you seriously suggesting Sinfield is not a veteran at this game?

Sinfield is knocking on the door of his 30s. Of course he's a veteran. Would you have said he was a veteran in 2002? I doubt it.

Just because Hall and Smith have been blooded early and well shouldn't take away from the fact they are both good, young players. I'm 24, am I an old man?

You are not a youngster, so don't kid yourself.



Whether blooded early or not (and IMO Hall was not bloodied early), they have played as many games as few players get to play at the top level throughout their whole career. They are far from younsters in Rugby League terms.

In Rugby Union terms they would be kindergarten, fair enough.