How is it harder to win? someone has to win it and someone will win it every year.

You say the likes of Leeds, Warrington and Wigan had their eyes on bigger prizes in 2013 and i would agree, I'd also say in 2015 they had their eyes on a bigger prize. Thats why with the scores 16-14 in the final minutes Leeds went for the 2 and didnt kick for the corner, because whilst it would have meant we lost the LLS we got a home semi for the big game.

Had we won the lls and nothing else it would have been no greater achievement than Hudds in 2013, and had Hudds or Wigan won it this year nobody would be talking about their great achievement and id bet a pound to a penny those bigging up our win of the LLS would be on here playing it down and telling hudds fans or wigan fans they only won it because we were concentrating on the big prizes

Firstly Hudds fans aren't mocking, they're sulking because their win wasn't met at the same level as Leeds.

And no, it isn't a case of it being more significant simply because Leeds won it. If Hudds did the treble in 2013 and Leeds only did the LLS this year then they could have a point but as I pointed out above......these scenarios didn't happen. So i'm judging it on what scenario ACTUALLY DID HAPPENED, not a what if.

They are.

and rightly so. People are going to mock as a fanboy if what is a great achievement for us is a meaningless one for them.

They aren't mocking because our success is meaningless to them, they're sulking because they wanted their success to be met with the same response, not just from opposition fans but Sky and other media too.....however it's blindingly obvious to most why it rightly wasn't and it's not because it was Leeds. Had Wigan or Saints done what we did this year I'd still be saying their LLS win was a much better achievement than Huddersfield's.

we can see you shifting those goalposts.

Nobody, no huddersfield fans were pretending their LLS win was equal to 'what we did this year'

Nope I was still on about the LLS, you're just reading it to suit your agenda you sad little man.

it does seem a very vague choice of words for what was previously pretty specific.

its a little pathetic to downplay hudds LLS win and big up ours. Its like Barcelona fans mocking Real Madrid fans on the basis that their Club world Cup win was a better achievement. Its small time. Our treble was impressive enough. We dont need to pretend it was more than it was.

Perhaps Hudds title was given to them as part of the RFL's positive discrimination policy, you know with Brett Ferres being such poon hound and all?

Leeds actually stated at the start of the season that the LLS was on their agenda

Maybe I should have wrote something like this that included the term "LLS win" to make sure it was specific......

"Had Wigan or Saints done what we did this year I'd still be saying their LLS win was a much better achievement than Huddersfield's."

Oh wait I did but you cherry picked 5 words out of the middle of it. Well done you.

They said that about everything. And went for the two.

Had Wigan or Saints done what we did last year, they would have won the treble, not just the LLS. You know the fog you were trying to introduce.

The treble was a much better achievement than Hudds winning the LLS.
Winning the LLS as part of a treble is a greater achievement than just winning the LLS
Winning the LLS now is not a greater achievement than winning it previously.

Whilst not wishing to prolong your somewhat tedious bitch fest obsession with Printer, given the alternative format provided by the Super 8's last season, your last statement is clearly incorrect.

The treble was a much better achievement than Hudds winning the LLS.
Correct
Winning the LLS as part of a treble is a greater achievement than just winning the LLS
Correct
Winning the LLS now is not a greater achievement than winning it previously.
Arguable but, IMO, a more difficult proposition now than in the old system

This is exactly how i see it

Apparently Huby has broke his wrist so won't be available for the Leeds game.....

No wife and no wrist, gonna a tough few weeks for him

how?

The idea sides 'wanted' it more doesnt hold any water when you remember we wouldnt even risk home advantage for it, but for the bounce of a ball Wigan would have pretty much won it by default last year.

Interestingly, Huddersfield not only earned more points than us in the Super 8s this year, but actually needed more points, in fewer games to win the title in 2013, and there were fewer points covering the top 8 (albeit 1 point) that year than this.

Very disingenuous & selective use of statistics I'm afraid - you need to do better.

In 2013 it was a 14 team league, the bottom 6 being Salford, London, Castleford, Wakefield, Widnes & Bradford.
In 2015 there were only 12 in the league. Further, for the last 7 games of the league the games were only against the other top 8 sides, removing the "whipping boy" bottom 4 clubs.

Just on the basis of logic, to play only 11 teams home & away (the 2 weakest from 2014 having been kicked out of the league), then to play the top 7 thereafter once (home or away) has got to be more difficult than playing 13 teams home & away - surely?

Of course it's harder to win the LLS nowadays. If the old system was in play, we would have won it comfortably. Every minute does matter now. Fortunately, we built up a great lead upto and including August which allowed us to drop points in September. Saints (top 4), Cas (their cup final), Catalan away (almost unbeatable there) and Hudds away (top 4) in September is a ridiculous run in. To come out on top after all that is unbelievable.

I might add that in a discussion about the difficulty of winning a league, what significance does a "bounce of a ball" have? Do you not think that in previous years there were close games decided by similar bounces of balls?

Also, what significance does getting more points in the Super 8s have? The LLS is awarded to the team with the most points after 30 rounds of matches, not what happens after the first 23 rounds.

What is selective or disingenuous about them? what statistics do you have that would contradict it?

On a more subjective basis Dont forget that a large amount of those super 8's games were dead rubbers for one of the sides, Wire were serving up some absolute dross, Hull FC won 1 game in the super 8s, and in my opinion the teams at the bottom of SL in 2015 were worse than those at the bottom in 2014, Wakefield were a free 4 points for pretty much every side and worse than London in 2013

but everybody else we were competing with had a similar run-in (and a few did better than we did)

my point was that Wigan last year were not a great side, they had flickerings of a decent one, but couldnt win away from home and put in some pretty poor performances. How can this LLS be so difficult to win if it can be won by a team who wins 4 away games all year?
Youre point was that the super 8s and the additional fixtures make winning the LLS more difficult to win, but as we proved, a side doesnt need to be the best in the super 8s to win the LLS, a side can win thee games in the first 23 rounds and then, for instance, only win 4 of 7 in the super 8s.

"Similar" being the operative word. How many had a challenge cup semi final and final to contend with? Certainly not Wigan or Huddersfield. We had no rest. How many had to go to Catalans away? How many teams lost vital playmakers to injury (Aiton, Burrow)? All highly significant points.

Equally more subjectively, how many of the 2007,8,9,10,11,12,13,14 games were "dead rubbers" for the top, say, 8 teams? Which teams in previous years were serving up some absolute dross?

If Wakefield were a free 4 points in 2015 (they got 6 points from 23 games), what does that make London in 2014 (2 points from 27 games)?

There are invariably statistics that can back either side of most cases, but one thing is a matter of fact (as I stated in a previous post):
Just on the basis of logic, to play only 11 teams home & away (the 2 weakest from 2014 having been kicked out of the league), then to play the top 7 thereafter once (home or away) has got to be more difficult than playing 13 teams home & away - surely?