Its all opinion, but answering the original question, Leeds are undoubtedly the best side of the play-off era, but for greatest side ever, they are nowhere near as impressive as the Wigan side of the early 90's era.

They were that good that the game had to be restructured to its latest guise in order to stop them killing the sport because of their dominance.....Also the only side to win a true World Challenge and not a pre season run out for the Aussie side, they went to Oz midway through THEIR season and came away with a win.

Massive respect to Leeds for their ability to 'manage' their squad and their season, but for true invincibility and season long dominance, that Wigan side are a few rungs above them.

That Wigan team was a great team, but the fact that they didn't operate in a salary cap era has to count against them. For Leeds to have been as consistent as they have in the last 7/8 years in a salary cap era (and without any breaches) is astonishing.

Yes, this Leeds side has proved itself an impressive one in the salary-capped, play off era, but I was answering the initial question of this thread and this Leeds side (and any other in this era), would not have stopped that Wigan side.....Admittedly, that Wigan side would have smashed any salary cap, but that was not the point of the question???

The Wigan side was unbelievable and a real watershed for our sport. However, the level playing field we now have under the salary cap must be taken into account if we're going to do a theoretical comparison of the two sides. They were legendary Wigan teams but they were full time professionals playing part timers, apart from Leeds who were professional in name only in those later years

.

Having said that, Wigan's WCC in Aus is still a remarkable feat yet to be bettered. Leeds have offered to play the game in Australia the last few years but for various reasons, the Aussies aren't interested. As a Leeds fan I'd love us to tale them on down under.

You really cannot fairly compare teams from different eras. Take the great Wigan team, the would get smashed by todays Leeds team, due to advances in sport science even over that relatively short time, but they were a great team. The game is one of skill and physical prowess and any comparison of eras can only look at half the game (skill) as the more modern era will win the physical comparison every time.

Leeds are clearly the greatest of the current era and like all great teams their mental resolve is outstanding

When was there a realistic offer made to Australian clubs?

This is a Leeds Myth as I can not see any press where Australian Clubs have been offered the game and turned it down.
If Leeds offered to play the Storm three weeks into the NRL season on their Bye weekend, the draw has not been made yet the NRL could schedule the Storms Bye early to accommodate Leeds.
Why wouldn't the Storm accept?
Craig Bellamy was very vocal a couple of years ago about this matter and wanted to host the game but said there was no offer by Leeds to do so.

Quote ="Buggo" When was there a realistic offer made to Australian clubs? This is a Leeds Myth as I can not see any press where Australian Clubs have been offered the game and turned it down. If Leeds offered to play the Storm three weeks into the NRL season on a Wednesday night I am sure they would accept.'" ""For next year the plan was to play it in England but it could be subject to change if the NRL wish to stage it. We're ready to go and have always been ready to go. The ball is very much in their court." www1.skysports.com/rugby-league/ ... an-England

Quote ="Buggo" When was there a realistic offer made to Australian clubs? This is a Leeds Myth as I can not see any press where Australian Clubs have been offered the game and turned it down. If Leeds offered to play the Storm three weeks into the NRL season on a Wednesday night I am sure they would accept.'" ""For next year the plan was to play it in England but it could be subject to change if the NRL wish to stage it. We're ready to go and have always been ready to go. The ball is very much in their court." www1.skysports.com/rugby-league/ ... an-England

Quote ="christopher"""For next year the plan was to play it in England but it could be subject to change if the NRL wish to stage it. We're ready to go and have always been ready to go. The ball is very much in their court." www1.skysports.com/rugby-league/ ... an-England'" That is a statement to the media, the same as he has said on the pitch after winning the league title. That is not an official offer or discussion, its talking crap in the heat of the moment, when its known it will not be played in Oz. I believe that the game was decided to be played in England some months ago regardless of "offers" Why is it not played alternately? Because its a SL vehicle to be played at a time that suits the SL Club at their venue and with everything in the English Clubs favour, its not complicated.

Quote ="christopher"""For next year the plan was to play it in England but it could be subject to change if the NRL wish to stage it. We're ready to go and have always been ready to go. The ball is very much in their court." www1.skysports.com/rugby-league/ ... an-England'" That is a statement to the media, the same as he has said on the pitch after winning the league title. That is not an official offer or discussion, its talking crap in the heat of the moment, when its known it will not be played in Oz. I believe that the game was decided to be played in England some months ago regardless of "offers" Why is it not played alternately? Because its a SL vehicle to be played at a time that suits the SL Club at their venue and with everything in the English Clubs favour, its not complicated.

You've been given a direct quote from the Leeds CEO that says "We're ready to go and have always been ready to go. The ball is very much in their court"

Aside from your asinine ramblings do you have any direct quotes to refute his clear intentions? Perhaps something to substantiate the made up quotes you've attributed to Bellamy?

FWIW, the Aussies are not interested in staging it because it wouldn't garner the same interest or make the same amount of money down under. Fair enough, but don't dress that up as Leeds being unwilling to play it down under. Leeds have shown willingness to do so.

On a tangent, maybe it's always over here after the trouble Wigan had getting money out of Brisbane following their historic win?

[url=http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/sea-eagles-push-for-world-club-challenge-20111009-1lfxk.html#ixzz1aMa67oGsLeeds owner Gary Hetherington has expressed a desire to play in Australia[/url
This was after the 2011 GF and the build up to the 2012 WCC.

[url=http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/rugby_league/3953140/.htmlThe Rhinos were hoping to play the challenge in Australia but there was not enough time to set it up.[/url

To a certain extent, I disagree with this theory.....I agree there is more professionalism in today's game, due to all clubs being full time, but to suggest that Leeds would smash that Wigan team is an absolute joke - It would more likely be the other way around.

The main difference between the eras is that nowadays there isn't as much of gap between top players and those at the bottom end of the quality scale - Pre Super League, there were many great players who would definitely hack it at today's level, but there was also plenty of very mediocre players who wouldn't last 10 minutes in today's game....What made Wigan so special is that nearly all their side were at the top end of the quality scale.

If you really think today's game is that much better than that early 90's era, just compare the GB/England sides from then and now - Its embarrassing how poor we are now compared to then, seing as Super League was supposed to improve the standard of our game, because that GB team of old would tear the present bunch a new bumhole....

They wouldnt, there were some god awful players around late 80's early 90's. Its easy to look like a world beater when you are playing against a panel beater.

How many panel beaters did that Brisbane side have in its ranks back in '94, or how many did you have in your line up for '94 and '95 Cup finals?....



That Wigan side of the early 90's, when put next to your present side, comes out on top in my eyes.....Yes, they did play against a weaker league in general, but there were still some very handy sides around who could test them, and more often than not they would come out on top.

They were players of their time, they didnt play the modern game so they didnt need the skills a modern day player has.

The tackles are harder, the players fitter, the game quicker, the gaps smaller, the defences better

Its all opinions I suppose, but just for starters, Offiah v Hall, Edwards v McGuire, Hanley v Sinfield.....You'd need a damn good argument to convince me that any of those 3 Leeds players come out on top in those match ups.

anyway to get back on topic
i have heard a rumour that wigan.warrington,saints and hull fc etc etc have finally grasped the concept of what it takes to be crowned the official sl champions, apparently you can actually finish anywhere between first and eighth



i anticipate more big time bottling by the top sides during the seasons finale as opposed to the side that knows how to perform when it matters

Except that its not. Your post is in fact completely ignorant of the difference between Super League and the NFL in terms of structure, namely that each of the respective NFL teams do not play every twice. That is the whole point of the play off system - to cater for the nuances in the schedules.

As for Leeds 'best team ever.' Not close. The Wigan 1994/95 side and Saints 2000 sides were markedly better in my opinion and oozed class. Quite how the OP team can compare a team that finishes 5th to those teams is quite frankly barmy.

This Leeds team (2012) is probably not as good as the sides you mention. The team in 2004 was arguably as good only losing 2 league games all season and winning the gf.
The fact that we have reached 7 of the last 9 finals winning 6 of them is a sign that although players and coaches have left and been replaced the core of the team are champions.

All done staying within the cap.

and???......

Therefore achieving an absolutely remarkable feat by playing within the salary cap rules agreed by all SL clubs - or to put it another way, doing it without cheating.

Sadly we can't say the same for the other winners of the GF; Bulls, Warriors and Saints, can we?

I agree with a lot of what you have posted. There is one factor you haven't taken in to account and that's the way history tends to remember things in a better way than more recent events. When making a subjective assessment like this it's got to be a huge factor.

Nobody will ever call a current team "the greatest ever", even Wigan had to contend with being compared to the great Hudds team of the 50's.
All I'd say is that the Leeds team of 2004 was as good a club side as I have ever seen, 2008 and 2009 vintage wasn't bad either.

"Best team ever" - can't be said.

I agree, the Leeds team of 04 is criminally underrated IMO.

Nope I'm not ignorant to the differences - my point was made on the similarities that a team can be consistent all year but fall at the final hurdle. Regardless of the structure, I think it's a valid comparison. Probably even more so because the Patriots had already played and beaten the Giants in the regular season..... only to lose to them in the final.



And well done you've missed the point. Sinfield's Leeds won the league again - finishing 5th doesn't change that.

And that is the schoolboy error that all the other sides keep making. While they FINISH, Leeds carry on and win the trophy.

Leeds FINISHED as Champions. End of story.