Settle an argument for me please!
Who had the better season in 2011 Leeds or Warrington?

How does it settle an argument?

"Look a load of anonymous people on the net marginally agree with me"

I'll go for Leeds

just saying

Wigan.

I have gone for Leeds s the made the Challenge Cup final and won the Grand Final. Warrington where amazing last year though and I hope they win it this time around.

Warrington had the better season as a whole, Leeds just finished better. You only have to look at league positions before the play-offs started to realise who had the better season. Leeds's season was more successful in terms of silverware, but Warrington won more games overall. Warrington won 22 league games out of 27 compared to Leeds's 15.

Ask both sets of fans if they'd swap games won for trophies earned, and you have your answer.

Warrington's season came down to 2 games essentially, and they lost them both despite playing some scintillating stuff in the weekly rounds.

Warrington - Brilliant season, poor finish
Leeds - Mediocre season - brilliant finish

Why choose? It depends on whether your definition of 'better season' hinges on consistent performance in the league or getting to/winning finals.

For me, the 'champion' end to the season more than compensates for some of the poorer stuff we had to suffer in the earlier rounds, whilst Wire fans, I suspect can be consoled by the fact that they played the best rugby for most of the year.

As a fan i'd rather have Warrington's season.
I know Leeds won the GF but with 3 games to go the Leeds fans were booing them!

I buy a season ticket to see my team win the league, not the Grand Final.

At the start of the season who's goals are to win the league leaders shield and fizzle out in the finals?

I don't know why people bother with this every season.

Leeds Rhinos super league champions 2011.

Warrington.

Its pointless winning the Grand Final and calling yourself Champions if you've not finished top of the league. Its like a hollow victory and open to everyone saying it was luck.

You can fluke winning a Grand Final, but you can't fluke finishing top of the league.

its not how you start its how you finish and leeds finished the season very strong,a bit of a no brainer for me has to be leeds.

20 years down the line it will say leeds won super league it wont say warrington had a belting season but couldnt produce when it mattered.

every game should matter, not just the last 4. If the rest don't matter then why do you buy a season ticket? surely they are only equivalent to friendlies if they don't matter?

the fact we have this debate proves its all wrong - if top of the league were champions we wouldn't be saying Leeds have had a better season cos they've won the Premiership trophy!

Did Birmingham City have a better season than Arsenal last season cos they won 5 knockout games to win the League Cup?!

Leeds reached both finals and won the big one, very unlucky not to win the other too.

They had the best and most successful 2011 season of all british RL clubs.

Nice name, terrible opinion.

You can if all the other contenders are focussed on performing at their best in the play offs rather than the qualifying rounds.

Claiming Wire had a better season than Leeds when Leeds achieved what everyone else wanted to is crazy.

This post is Total BS from start to finish !

i agree

As an actual fan on the whole i enjoyed the season but if you gave me both scenarios it would be Leeds every time.

No you can't.

Leeds won one of the two important trophies, and also got to the final of the other, they get my vote.

but the rules are there for all to see the winners of the grand final are the champions,there not my rules they are the rules of the rfl,so teams will train to be stronger at the end of a season.

you can make your point all you like but thats that,has for why do you buy a season ticket its because i support my team "cas" who dont have much sucsess but all the same i still enjoy watching them most of the time,if we all supported the supposed teams that can win then the game would be in an even sorrier state than it already is.

for what its worth warrington had a good season but ultimatly failed in what they sat out to do which was to win the grand final and given the players that they had at there disposal which through out the season they showed to be the strongest side but when it came to knock out football they lost.

True, but I'd go further.

Warrington were blessed with very few major injury concerns (as Leeds were during the 'three-in-a-row' years.
Who's to say that Leeds would not have competed better throughout last season if they hadn't played without arguably their best back(McGuire) and their strongest forward(Peacock) for much of it. Leeds also played much of the season without recognised props or half-backs or centres.
I for one, believe it's no accident that McGuire and Peacock's return to the team (along with many other injured first-teamers) coincided with Leeds' return to champion form.
Factor in a new coaching team, virtually no pre-season and new playing systems, and Leeds' poor early season form takes on a wholly different and much brighter perspective.

Leeds by as country mile,if any wire fan says otherwise is lying IMO.

We had plenty of 'key' injuries through the season but we had a good squad depth and were fortunate enough to not have players with very long recovery time injuries.

Name our key players and they all had a spell on the treatment table.

Yes, but not all at once and like you said not long recovery times, which is why I specified major injury concerns. There was no point in the season where you could say you had an injury crisis in the same way as Leeds (and indeed Saints) could for a very large chunk of it.

Ask any Warrington player who happened to have been watching Sky Sports at around 7.30pm on Saturday Oct 8, 2011 who had the better season and I think you may get the correct answer