I think it would be better put, if we would say that Saints have been the most successful team during the superleague era. No one could then argue with that.

I don't separate the two. To me, the fact that in the past six years (which is the timespan originally mentioned) Saints have got to four Grand Finals on the trot, winning one, that they have won at least three Challenge Cups and been league leaders four times, have won one World Club Championship, have had four men of steel, had the coach twice voted as coach of the year, and won everything available in 2006 makes Saints more successful than Leeds in the last six years. However, some fans have tunnel vision, totally taken in by the Sky hype, and can only measure success by Grand Final wins. I'm not such a fan. I view success holistically: there is more than one piece of silverware in rugby league and not only have we won a goodly number of pieces during the last six years, when we haven't won it we have been in the final contesting it, which shows what a talented bunch of players we have had.

I confess to being bemused by Saints fans who do down our success in the way that you seem to be doing.

I think you will find that some people will, because we haven't won all the Grand Finals.

Personally, I put the Grand Final as the highest accolade, and in that respect, this has been an era for Leeds, no doubt. One season - not an era; 2 seasons - the makings of an era, but 3 seasons (IMHO) justifies the use of the word "era". It is an amazing achievement to be crowned champions 3 years in a row.

I don't put it as the highest accolade due to SKY. I put it due to being consistant for 27 weekly rounds, and performing in 3 or 4 playoff/GF matches (against the best teams for that year). To me, that has higher prestige than winning 5 knockout games (often against teams from lower divisions).

Leeds may not have won as many trophies as Saints overall over the last 3 years (although it's close), but I would still class it as the Leeds era. That doesn't mean I think Saints haven't been successful over the same period either.

Regarding "is their era over"? - well, we have been asking the same questions about us for the last 2 years. Our youngsters have stepped up, and we have been able to maintain our competiveness. Leeds face the same situation - if their new players / youngers can step up, there is no reason why they can't still be competitive - whether they can regularly win silverware, who knows, but they will be there or there abouts (like us!).

Don't try to put your skewed values onto my opinions in regard to Sky to justify your own opinions. The League Championship has always been more valued than a Challenge Cup win. The current format for determining the League Champions is via a Grand Final win, nothing else.

We have been successful, where has anyone said any different?

Not so.

And I was expressing my opinion of yours, not skewing yours to fit my own. I don't have any need to do that as my own opinion and values are of equal worth to yours or anyone else's.

I don't agree with you and that's the end of the matter.

I repeat:

I wasn't the one who was suggesting that anyone that didn't agree with me had bought into the 'Sky hype machine. It's you that has the problem with people disagreeing with your opinion, no one else.

Nicely put.



Now Saintsfan - take note of the above!

There's more chance of Ryan Bailey being voted MoS by his fellow professionals than SaintsFan taking note of the above!

I know, it was worth a try though

It has now. Three year deal for McDermott? Get in there lol. Unless they sign Lockyer, Inglis and Hindmarsh I am writing them off for next year lol. Looks like another all-Lancashire top three again.

Dont you guys learn?

That sounds like betting talk son

Some of us didn't class it as an era in the first place so there is nothing to consider over for mine. They could be just as good under the new Mc as they were under the old. In fact, a new coach can refresh a team. Or totally ruin them, obviously! Either way it will be interesting as a neutral to see how the Leeds players respond to all the changes that are happening at the club.

Leeds finished 3rd last season.

no they didnt

They never mate

Yes they did.
They were the next highest qualifier after Wigan and Saints

Wire "lost" their third place when they got beaten by Huddersfield.

Woohoo! Big deal.

so by your measure, wire came 5th? tell them that on their board and let me know the reaction

That's how it works, and how the prize money is dished out.

1) Wigan (now that feels good)
2) Saints (again)
3) Leeds
4) Huddersfield
5) Warrington
6) Hull K.R
7) Hull
8 Crusaders

That is what i thought

I don't feel too bad about seeing wire fifth. It was a slip up.

Getting third was a slip. /Getting Fifth was a slip.

Have you any proof of this?

I've only ever heard Wigan fans (and now Leeds) claim this to be the case to make it seem like they finished higher, than the league table suggests. You may be right, i am genuinely asking for some proof of this.

Saints finished top of the league in 2007 & 2008 yet Leeds were champions i.e top after the play offs.

The play offs decide the final positions, not the league table.