Times asking readers, see timesonline.typepad.com/rugby_league/

Times asking readers, see timesonline.typepad.com/rugby_league/

No, just going through a dominant spell at the moment.

They've just equalled our Super League trophy count, but are still behind us on Cup wins during the SL era. Saints have won 5 SL crowns.

1) Saints
2) Bulls
3) Leeds

It seems obviously:

1) Bulls
2) Saints
3) Leeds

Saints are closest to the title but despite falling on harder times, the Bulls deserve to be called THE team of SL so far, overall.

Their effort in securing three titles on the trot is pretty special.

At the moment it's all about LS6. That's where the glory is in this county.

Our achievements seem like a distant memory and it's entirely likely we will slip further down the list. All the mickey taking of the past is coming back our way in spades! I think it's time to bin the thong-wearing Rhino avatar!

Its all cycles.

Consistently, yes. But I don't think that this Leeds team is as good as either best Bulls or Saints team. The opposition is weaker now, although that not Leeds' fault (apart from signing Peacock).

If Leeds make it 4 i think it would be hard to argue.

I don't want to take away from Leeds Rhinos' achievments but i do think lately the standard of teams in SL is not what it was.

I think the league has certainly been watered down by the salary cap. Which is why having a good academy is so important and Leeds are reaping the benefits of having probably the best production line of talent to bring through.

Agreed. One thing about Leeds you really cant argue with is the quality they produce across the team, backs/halves/forwards.

A good academy should always be important.

BTW Bulls side 2003 was about as good as it gets for any team in SL under salary cap laws.

we've beaten the side that finished first in 2007 and 2008 and beaten the side that finished 2nd in 2009
hardly what i would call beating a substandard side to win 3 gf's on the trot?

Saints aren't as strong as they were, just ageing. Neither Leeds or Saints have had to be brilliant to finish in top 2. Wigan and especially Bulls have dropped off massively.

07 was the only upset out of the 3.

Its amazing how many people argued that we could not have been anything like within the cap then.

Agreed re the academy. Bring them through that, tie them down with long contracts (not so easy now as it was) and you save a huge amount on your wages bill which you can spend on marquee signings.

But re salary cap - oOr maybe...that the talent has had to be spread around a bit wider than before?

If there was no cap, what chance would clubs like Bulls (and others) with no rich owners have?

The big difference from the start of SL is surely that certain clubs now have wealthy - and committed - owners able to bankroll them AND run them, professionally.

Where were the McManuses (smart guy) and the Davys at the start of SL? Did Leeds have a Caddick? Wire were on their uppers till Moran came in to bankroll them. Even the Pies were in a lean spell and had to sell their ground and call part of the capital proceeds sponsorship.

Bulls cashed in by being easily the most professionally managed and forward-looking club at the start of SL. But that did not endure, as other clubs caught up, and its now the money starting to dominate the competition. Off-field more than on-field...look at the resources some other clubs have to play with now for marketing and the like. If there was no salary cap, you'd just see an ever-widening gulf ON the field too, between those clubs with wealthy backers and those without. IMO anyway.

For the record I am in favour of the cap, I just feel in the sort term it has lead to a watering down of the competition. Hopefully in another 5 years more teams will be producing similar amounts of good quality players and the overall quality will have risen.

I think the comp definitely could do with a different set of GF Finalists next year, but it is difficult to see Leeds not being top dogs for a while yet.

I think it's amazing how Leeds have been consistently brilliant over the past 3 years, but our 2003 team takes some beating, and Leeds still need to prove they are the whole package by oding the cup aswell. I agree with the fact that the league has got weaker as a whole, but that doesn't take away from their 3 on the trot achievement.

Makes you thin of the good times

I don't think the competition has become weaker at all. Just increasingly evened-out. What makes people feel that it has?

When you look at Leeds squad this year then ours in 2003.

Which one looks stronger for champions ?

Right which one looks stronger as an overall squad ?

I think I know which most people will choose.

Bulls 2003
Robbie Paul
Tevita Vaikona
Leon Pryce
Lesley Vainikolo
Michael Withers
Paul Deacon
Joe Vagana
James Lowes
Paul Anderson
Daniel Gartner
Jamie Peacock
Mike Forshaw
Lee Gilmour
Karl Pratt
Alex Wilkinson
Stuart Reardon
Lee Radford
Jamie Langley
Scott Naylor
Karl Pryce
Vinny Myler
Chris Bridge
Rob Parker
Stuart Fielden
Richard Moore



Rhinos 2009
Brent Webb
Scott Donald
Lee Smith
Keith Senior
Ryan Hall
Danny McGuire
Rob Burrow
Kylie Leuluai
Danny Buderus
Jamie Peacock
Jamie Jones-Buchanan
Ali Lauitiiti
Kevin Sinfield
Matt Diskin
Michael Ratu
Ryan Bailey
Ian Kirke
Carl Ablett
Luke Burgess
Ashley Gibson
Simon Worrall
Danny Allan
Kallum Watkins
Ben Jones-Bishop
Paul McShane
Luke Ambler

I'd say the evening out of it has made some teams weaker. Only two teams have been strong over past 5 years. I'd say before then you could have added another one at least.

Why does that indicate the competition is getting weaker?

If people say the 2003 Bulls team was stronger, all it shows is that the 2009 champion team was not as strong as the 2003 champion team? Bearing in mind that we swept all before us in that season. It says nothing about the competition as a whole, given that the big complaint until comparatively recently was that the competition was dominated by the "big four" (or less).

Don't forget that there was a salary cap in place back in 2003 too. The difference then was that fewer clubs had the capacity to spend to the full allowable cap.

I just feel that some people are misinterpreting the general levelling of the competition that a rise in overall club standards has brought about - which may be a bit at the expense of the very top team/s having a bit less scope for running away with it - as a general "weakening".

To my mind a stronger competition would be one where the general standard of play is much higher across the board. I.e. all teams have attained the same standing as the old 'strong' teams. However, I do not believe that to be the case. Yes, it is a more even competition generally (more teams are able occasionally to beat the top 2), but that doesn't mean that it is stronger!

If you look around the league do you really see every team full of players of the standard of the Bulls, Saints, Wigan when they were at their best? It is also notable that only Hull and Wigan have made occasional GF appearances, breaking up the Saints/Bulls/Leeds domination (with the Bulls currently falling outside the group of late). So, overall, I'd say that the competition is evening up but being dilluted.

As to the OP's question re: Leeds being the greatest team of the SL era. I think the answer to that can only really be made by asking the supplementary question... what do you mean by 'the Leeds team' and the greatest? Yes, pretty much the current side won the big prize for 3 in a row, but what was the level of opposition? Would they have beaten Bulls 2003, Saints 2001, Wigan 1998, etc, who knows? What has been the effect of changes around the rules along the way, e.g. video/refereeing standards/interpretations, etc?

IMO Leeds are definitely the greatest team of the last 3 years

Rubbish. This has been the closest year for SL. The only competition you and Stains had in the late 90's and early 00's were each other. Despite this notion of a "Big 4", there was only ever a big 2 in reality. To have the likes of Huddersfield, Hull KR and Wakefield joining Wigan in the push for a new order in SL has breathed new life into the comp.

Don't even think about bracketing the Bulls in the same league as Stains. It would be as crazy as Leeds doing the same. You gave them a run for their money 10 years ago and we're doing it now. They have been THE team for the [iwhole [/iSL era and their trophy cabinet over this period says it all.

Its the same number of "good" players spread out over more teams due to the salary cap, so yes I feel its getting weaker as a whole. The competition is more even I suppose, but not necessarily better for it.