Hull FC 2013

In 2007 Leeds beat Saints comfortably 3 times (including the GF). In 2004 Leeds won the league by 9 points and only lost 2 games (3 if you include Bradford in the playoffs). They scored more points but conceded 13 more than Saints did in 2006. The fact that Leeds didn't wipe the awards ceremony clean (I assume your talking about the MOS awards) is still a travasty.

The OPs Widnes team was, I reckon, the paciest British club RL team I have ever seen. Whilst technically not the best RL team (they didn't need to be) they were the most exciting (and one of the most effective) in the last 50 years.

They lost 4 games (they lost in the Challenge Cup don't forget) and drew two, so over the season Saints 06 won more than Leeds 04.

When talking about winning everything, I include the CC, the RL awards (like you've said, such as the MoS), and also teo of the BBC awards. Only thing they didn't get was the Sports Personality of the Year award!

Had Leeds 04 won the CC, I'd say they were the greatest (I'm only going SL era as I haven't been watching earlier!). But they didn't.

All teams lose players through injuries. Bradford and Leeds were worthy grandfinalists. When it came to the crunch they were better than St Helens. You can make excuses for them if you want, buy into the mythology if you want but there is a trophy in Bradfords Trophy cabinet which says 2005 SL champions (if they havent sold it yet) there isnt one in St Helens.

Yet they lost. Like Leeds lost in the GF. Bradford had finished 7 points below Leeds in the league. No excuses need to be made. We dont need to hide behind losing Keith Senior to injury at the business end of the season, we dont need to highlight how much losing the CC final which we had made in 2005 (Which im sure you remember) took out of the squad. We lost because Bradford, who were a very good side, were better when it came down to it.

a missed offside at a penalty? Not that dodgy



Awards ceremonies are neither here nor there, No evidence of anything really. The 2006 Sts side were 2 games different from the 2005 Leeds side who could have won the cup and the GF and were in fact a total of 10 points over both games from doing so. The Leeds 2004 side was better than the 2005 side, yet the 2005 could have won more. Thats why it would really be nonsense to judge it over one season and purely on 'awards'. Even if we did just judge it on 'awards' then Wigan in the 80'2/90's are undoubtedly better than St Helens.

In my lifetime, im confident we wont ever see a team as successful as we have seen from Leeds over the past 7 years. I dont think we will ever see longevity, in a fully pro, salary capped sport where one side wins 5 out of 7 championships and appears in 6 of 7 grand finals.

I'd agree with this. Widnes of 1989 were arguably the best team I've seen in the "modern" (limited tackle) era. A shame they fell apart so soon afterwards. I thought they'd have beaten Wigan in the 1989 CC Final if they'd been there - as it was they lost to Saints at Central Park after a joke sending off for an alleged high tackle. I sometimes wonder what goes through referees' minds when they make decisions like this one.

Hull FC 1978/79 season...played 26 won 26

considering how the final went i wish you'd have won the semi!

Wigan 1994. No other team in history could hold a light to this side.

NOt my team mate, I'm a Fev fan. But the Saints side were constructed with the old competitive scrum game in mind and whilst no one said anything officially, it was clear from the final that those days were over - I recall Murphy (quite rightly) complaining about the Wigan halfback feeding the scrum - to no avail. Saints had Stuart Evans, a prop forward who wasn't much good at anything except srummaging and a scrummaging prop was the last thing they needed.

I aren't saying they should have won in 2005. I'm very much in agreement with you that injuries are part of the game.

I think it's a fair excuse though for their losses at the run-in. It's hard to recover from that many key injuries. And it's not a myth, unless you can prove that Saints wouldn't have won the SL had they not had the injuries. It's an opinion and a fair one at that shared by many.


I think the decision not to go to the video ref was the dodgy call




Rubbish! The 2006 Saints side finished top of the pile by 8 points. Leeds 05 finished 2nd in everything and were 3 points off the LLS. They were not two games different. They won zero of the 3 domestic trophies. For someone complaining of people talking down the efforts of other teams achievements, you've done a massive disservice to Saints 06 with that comment!

The thread is about which year had the greatest club side. Whether you think that's nonsense or not isn't the point! It's not which club side was the best over a certain period!


I disagree that they were the most successful anyway.
From 2004-2012, they've won 5 SLGFs, 2 LLSs and 3 WCCs. They've lost 1 SLGF, 3 CCFs and 2 WCCs.
Saints from 2000-2008, Saints have won 3 SLGFs, 5 LLSs, 5 CCs and 2 WCCs. They lost 2 SLGFs, 2 WCCs and 1 CCF.

In terms of trophy haulage, league positionings, wins, I'd go with Saints. You might disagree, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong!

That would be my call for the sheer uniqueness of it

I cant prove that there isnt a crazy old man with a white beard who lives in the sky who seems to be weirdly obsessed with what people do with their genitalia with his chosen representative on earth being an old man in a funny hat and thats a belief shared by many, doesnt alter it being by all definitions a myth.
Have you ever seen a penalty being referred to the VR for offside? Ever?
Im not doing any disservice to the Saints 06 comment. I'd suggest reading what i put in its totality if you came to that conclusion. I simply stated that St's winning those three trophies (and your nonsense of 'awards') didnt define them as a great team. I in fact used the fact that the 2005 Leeds side which lost both the GF and CC final as evidence of this as their success would have been the same yet the 2005 Leeds side werent as good as the 2006 St's side or the 2004 Leeds side.

No you are wrong. You ask any player in the game what trophy they want to win, its the GF. It is the championship. You cant include the LLS, it is nothing, it is treated pretty much as nothing. Its no different to measuring who was top after 26 games, 13 games, 7 games,. We have an uneven regular season which is a qualifying competition. Between 2007 and 2009 a total of 0 pts seperated Leeds and St's, who is to say that if the LLS was the championship in the 2 seasons that St's won the league by a point Leeds wouldnt have tried a bit harder or peaked a little earlier to win that comp? Similarly who knows if St's would have pushed that bit harder in 2009?

Also, why have you counted 8 years for St's and 7 for Leeds?

Personally I don't think they were the best ever team, but certainly up there. For me it's the John Monie Wigan team.

What the Trinity of the 1960's were IMO was the most famous and glamerous RL team ever. Partly due to the way they played, the trophies they won - but also the film, the water splash final and it's place in sporting history and that they were the best team in what many consider the best decade in history. It all helps create a legend.

It was a trip, not a high tackle. We were done against Wigan at home for an alleged high shot by Darren Wright of all people (never cast as much as an angry glance in a Widnes shirt) 2 years later which in a lot of Widnes fans eyes cost us a 3rd title in 4 seasons by turning the game in Wigans favour after us being in control.

I'd also go for Widnes 89. Speed, skill & steel. Absolute joy to watch players like Myler, Offiah, Davies, Tait, Sorensen, Grima, McKenzie, Currier, Wright, the Hulme brothers et al.

I haven't read the full thread, but in my time the best would have to be the Wigan team that Gene Miles played in. I think that was the team that put Offiah in for 10 tries v Leeds in a Premiership semi.

Watched rugby a number of yrs so some great teams in the 80's for my club Hull, but for me it has to be the Saints team of 2006, that really was a special team.

The Team of all talents - huddersfield - 1914/15 won all four cups.

Did you get any clips on your mobile

Gotta be the Saints 06 team. Absolutely brilliant.

Like I said, I didn't say Saints had walked the league or would walk the league had they not had their injuries. I said they'd have been more likely to had they not had so many key injuries. That's not a myth. (And not more likely than Bradford or Leeds, but more likely than themselves without the injuries). The fact that they finished top by a fairly clear margin a week before the end of the season shows that they were certainly favourites with the team they had.
That doesn't mean they deserved to win, but it is certainly not a myth that they would have performed better had they had many of their first team players available to them.


I've seen a penalty kick that resulted in a try go to the video referee before. Ironically, that was also Leeds.
I don't see why this matters though. The wrong call was made.


It was rubbish to suggest that Leeds 2005 were two wins off being as successful as Saints 06. They weren't. It was a completely incorrect thing to say. They didn't even win the LLS, and were 3 points behind with one round still to go.
I didn't say that that trophies and awards were the only things that define a great team. But they are definitely a part of it. You can call the awards "nonsense" all you like, but the idea of an award is that it is a group of people's opinions.


Not all players value the same thing. Some want as many trophies as they can. Is one SLGF win greater than 2 LLS and 2 CCs? How many Leeds players would give up one of those SLGF wins for a CC win?
Just because you don't value the LLS doesn't mean others don't. Players certainly do. I remember reading a Jamie Peacock column in 2009 saying that Leeds need to prove a point by winning the LLS. Why would he say that if he didn't value it? It's a trophy. It's like saying the SLGF is worth nothing because it's a qualifying competition for the WCC.
And if the LLS was the championship, who isn't to say that the team at the top wouldn't have tried harder also? It works both ways. I think that both teams will have still been motivated enough to want to top the pile, get an easier fixture in the play-offs and win the LLS.

I didn't realise I'd messed up with the years. I included this season for Leeds, so 7.5 years.
Saints 2000-2007: SLGF wins x3, WCC wins x2, CC wins x 4, LLS x 4. Total = 13 (Finals: SLGF x 4, CCF x 5. Total = 9)
Leeds 2004-2011: SLGF wins x 5, WCC wins x2, LLS x2. Total = 9 (Final: SLGF x 6, CCF x 3. Total = 9)

And just for comparison, Bradford 1999-2006: SLGF wins x 3, WCC wins x3, CC wins x 2, LLS x3. Total = 11 (Finals: SLGF x 6, CCF x 3. Total = 9)

Leeds have won the most GFs over a short period of time, that I will give them. But in terms of overall success, I'd still go with Saints, and arguably Bradford were. But there's no point in discussing this with you further if you are going to say your opinion is fact. I am not wrong.

It means nothing, because we didn't do it, but reading some of the arguments in this thread made me realise that Bradford were 9 points away from being Champions 5 years in a row from 01 to 05 (lost Gf's by 1 & 8 points). Pretty impressive record if going on more than just a season in isolation.

What counts against Saints 06 for me is that the competition that year was extremely weak. The Bradford team broke up after the 05 final, Wigan were a mess and Leeds imploded. A distinctly average Hull team were the nearest competition.

As Saints hadn't won the title for 4 years before 06 and haven't since it's hard to say that team was as good as others who dominated the championship over longer spells.

We're the rest of the competition weak? Or just weak in comparison? You could say the same about any season with a team that convincingly wins the LLS.

Saints hadn't won the GF for 4 years, but they'd win the LLS the year before, the CC the year before that and both the LLS and CC for both years following. I think it's fair to say that that squad had a few years of success!

Agree. That distinctly average Hull side weren't exactly embarrassed in the GF that year either, unlike Saints the following year against Leeds. Saints of 2006 were the archetypal flat-track bullies. Largely reliant on scoots, fast play-the-balls and piggy back penalties. No real pace or threat in the backs apart from Lyon.

I'm sticking with Bradford '03 as the best in the SL era.

Leeds were pretty good in 04 but still had a bit of a soft underbelly, and only just edged Bradford in the GF that season. Leeds 2007-2008 were probably a better all-round team - a bit less skill and more toughness.