Sounds like a certain Thai tsunami holiday.

I think you'll find he has four. Played in 2004 in place of Matt Adamson. Hasn't missed the last three either.

In fact I think you'll find he has none. His sons & wife do though.

Is this thread still going?

Isn't the answer no?

One of the noticable things about the levelling of the competition is that Leeds haven't been able to hold onto fringe players as easily (eg Scruton). When you compare the 2003 Bulls and 2009 Rhinos the impressive thing about the bulls '03 squad is the depth (whereas the Leeds squad beyond the first 17 or so is made up of more inexperienced kids).

Selecting a team for each side, I'd fancy Leeds' chances (though Sinfield would need to kick Big Les to death a la 2004)

Brent Webb Fullback Stuart Reardon
Scott Donald Winger Tevita Vaikona
Lee Smith Centre Michael Withers
Keith Senior Centre Shontayne Hape
Ryan Hall Winger Lesley Vainikolo
Danny McGuire Stand Off Robbie Paul
Rob Burrow Scrum Half Paul Deacon
Kylie Leuluai Prop Joe Vagana
Danny Buderus Hooker James Lowes
Jamie Peacock Prop Stuart Fielden
JJB 2nd Row Daniel Gartner
Carl Ablett 2nd Row Jamie Peacock
Kevin Sinfield L.Forward Mike Forshaw

Ali Lauitiiti Interchange Leon Pryce
Ryan Bailey Interchange Lee Gilmour
Matt Diskin Interchange Paul Anderson
Burgess/Kirke Interchange Radford/Parker

On a player to player basis I would say Bradford just edge that, though I wouldn't wish to predict who would win.

In fairness (once again) my reply was not about whether the champion team was stronger in 2003 c/w 2009, but whether the competition as a whole is.

My opinion remains that there is not much in it as regards the two teams, although its a powerful argument about the strength in depth. My argument was more about how the gulf between teams has narrowed so dramatically. I saw that as indicating the competition has strengthened overall, even if that means that the champion team is maybe not quite a s strong as it might otherwise have been. Most others seem to see that as a sign that it has weakened overall.

I reckon that the demise of St Helens is a lot to do with this perception, for many years they somehow managed to cobble together consistently a team which, when the chips were down, would play the 'Saints way', and we could all only stand back and watch in amazement.

All bubbles eventually break though, and Saints have lost that spark. It may be the start of a Bull-style demise, who knows? But I reckon the undeniable fact that Saints are not anything like what they were gives the impression that standards are down.

You don't have to do much to show that standards are actually well up, though. Just watch an early SL video involving bottom-half teams - you don't see much at all of that standard nowadays and anyone who says different is lying or a fool.

Agree with you on the standard rising amongst lower teams. However I do doubt whether the standard of RL played by the top teams is as good. I think what we've seen is poorer teams improve but top teams decline. The past three seasons have seen Leeds as the top side with Saints declining gradually. What we want to see are more teams attaining Leeds standards consistently.

Also we do seem to have difficulty producing top quality players in contrast to the late 80s and early 90s. A look at the England backline would seem to bear this out.

Hitler only has 1.

Its' a silly, un-proveable pub room argument but what the heck. My twopenneth.

If the competition is more even, as appears to be accepted whether the quality has risen or dropped, then surely winning the competition now is much harder than it was for the Bulls in 2003?

Winning it 3 times on the trot in an era when the competition is much more even certainly would given credence to any arguments that we are the best ever.

Also, on substandard, TVOC did a league table from all seasons since 2008 (when the champions were decided by GF) and Leeds cam out on top as the most consistent.

I agree with Aardvark that standards are up. the 2003 Bulls, the 2004 Leeds or the 2006 Saints certainly didn't have to play a Huddersfield team the calibre of this one. The "lesser lights" are much better now and there are no more "givens" in the fixture list like there were 6 years ago. Salford beat us this year, deservedly, for the first time in 32 years.

One thing I disagree with the Aardvark about is the "demise" of our nemesis, Saints. A team that were playing their 4th consecutive GF and had a 5th consecutive top two finish is hardly indicative of a team in decline. If it is, its' a decline I'd imagine the Bulls and twelve other clubs would rather be suffering at the moment. Make no mistake, Leeds have beaten very worthy,, top drawer opponents in the last 3 GF's.

Signs that you're getting old: Leeds fans are talking about how good their team is and you can't drive a bus through the gaps in their argument.

That and erectile dis function.

Not that I would know of course. just what I've been told.

And Bradford not making the play offs, all those tw@ings you handed out to us for 10 years feels like only last week.

How so? Winning three times on the trot when the standard was (as seems to be generally accepted) higher would show this to be the case, the fact noone did perhaps illustrating the case. Winning a weaker league three times on the trot show Leeds to be the best team at the current time for sure, but the best team ever?

Well they would do but two years is a small sample don't you think?

Not really arguing, but still Saints [iare[/i in decline, because they no longer play quite the way Saints once did, and that's a fact. I am not trying to take any credit away from anyone, but you must know what I mean, the way they played those last 20 minutes or so, or indeed the whole second half of the season, come to that.

It doesn't alter them still having been the second best team in the comp, but a marked and very noticeable decline nevertheless and with Long now as gone as Saints' belief in their own invincibility, who knows what their future holds?

One wonders how their already disappointing crowds will hold up if they suffered a decline like ours.

It does not seem to be generally accepted that standards are lower. There's some debate about that on this very thread. It does seem to be accepted that standards are more even, whether they have lowered, increased, or remained the same.

Therefore, winning it 3 times when teams are more even is an amazing achievement.

Try telling a Cas fan, or a Salford Fan, or a Hull KR fan or a Huddersfield fan that standards are now lower.

Oops. 1998. My bad.

They play differently, I agree. They may not enjoy the same level of success in 2010 and beyond with Long gone but then again they may. Eastmond looks like a hot prospect and they have Wheeler. They were Academy Champions in 2008 and have an excellent crop coming through.

I see them as being in transition, not decline. Unlike the Bulls post 2005 they're only losing the odd veteran but have one of the best crop of youngsters waiting in line behind them.

What I don't accept is that they were in decline in 2009, 2008 or 2007.

They haven't held an aura of invincibility for us since 2007 for some reason. In fact, quite the opposite.

Had it not been for Leeds Saints would've likely emulated the Bulls great 2003 season three years on the trot - 2006, 2007 and 2008 so I don't see us having beaten a team on the decline.

Well you wouldn't, would you?




But it wasn't the old Saints, whichever way you look at it, and that's a fact.

It probably is mostly a matter of perception mainly based on the fact that the `top` clubs aren`t as dominant as they once were. Both the two (still) fairly outstanding teams, Leeds and Saints still managed to lose games against sides from the bottom end of the table.

The ability levels at individual clubs are much more even than previously, which (I`ve posted ad nauseum about lower level players in SL so I`m not going to revisit that now) clearly means that, whatever the overall level, some have dropped and some have risen against each other.

If you support a club that has `traditionally` been near the top, you look at your side and see lower quality (I should know!), whilst if you support a team from which is from the `traditionally` lower end you see improvement. Both are correct, so it comes down to individual opinion on whether closer games means an improvement.

Sounds about right to me pal!