Given St Helens have won 1 Super League Champions (SL1) and 4 Grand Finals (5 runners up, 1 Stones Premiership runners-up), 7 Challenge Cups (1 runners up), 2 World Club Challenge victories (2 runners-up apps) whereas Leeds have won 5 Grand Finals (2 runners up) and 1 Challenge Cup (5 runners up) and 3 World Club Challenge victories (2 runners-up apps), I'd say that Saints are the most successful side in the 'salary cap era'.


Saints have won 14 major trophies/titles since 1996 whereas Leeds have won 9. Saints have been runners-up 9 times, Leeds 9 times.

14 beats 9, 9 is a draw against 9 and 23 beats 18. Game, set, match St Helens.

(and just for the record I never said Wigan were the most successful side in SL era, just in RL era!)

Don't worry. He'll change tack now and say that he actually only meant the SL competition, even though the salary cap applies across all competitions.

Ah selective arguing there. Leeds are the only team to win SL Back to back titles, they are the only team ever to win SL 3 times in a row. Leeds are the only team to win the GF and WCC in the same season. Leeds are the only team to win 5 GF's.

Leeds may not have as many CC's as saints but have more WCC's, plus they hold 4 unpresidented records in the game.

Probably so. I don't wana derail too much. Overall, I thought a couple of big decisions harshly went against us. But Leeds were ruthless, clinical and Hall, BJB & Watkins were very good, but we also made them look good with McGoldrick & Griffin particularly poor in defence. But there's reason to be optimistic, we were competitive, leeds knew they'd been in a game. We need to look onwards and (hopefully) upwards. Millington impressed, ferres is getting better. Would like to see Walker added to the side for London too.

No just the facts. I didn't even mention the team we have dominated the most is saints.

What do you define as dominating?

You've beat them in 4 grand finals, I wouldn't really call it dominating. I'd guess throughout super league, they've beaten you more.

Selective arguing? Leeds have won 5 Grand Finals but Saints have won 4 Grand Finals and won the League in SL1, which would effective count as the equivalent of the GF victory at that time. Therefore, that's all square.

Besides: you said the most "successful" side. Success is usually defined by trophies. Saints have won more trophies. Doesn't matter whether they're back to back or every other year. You're not the most successful, fact, as shown above.

why do leeds celebrate the fact that ryan bailey is a cowardly thug? whilst the rest of the rugby league family condenm him the rhino's defend his behaviour and even seem proud of it.

PS. If you want to bring in a load of things such as "records", which don't define success in the grand scheme of things but more consistency and benchmark at this moment in time, then by my guest.

Personally, success over a sustained period of time is all about the numbers. Is a team that wins 4 back to back titles more successful than one that has won 4 over a period of 15 years? No.

But Fully, even thought Saints have won more trophies, Leeds beat Saints more, they're leeds' "grand final bitchez". Leeds are the bestest because they dun it back to back to back.

even thought saints have won more trophies through the sl / salary cap era.

We have set unprecedented records. If you wanna start putting fact after stuff hows this?

Leeds have had unprecedented success. fact

because he does what he wants and he's blatantly the most feared man in super league. Mot mate.

It's not a fact that Leeds are the most successful team in sl era though is it?

:26ire7ao

At this current time.

Through the "salary cap" era as you started off stating unprecedented success for their record across all competitions.

you wouldnt call beating them in 4 GF's as dominating? Are you for real? four grand finals is pretty massive. Plus we handed them their biggest SL defeat.

PS. Bradford have also won 1 Championship, 3 GFs, 2 CCs and 3 WCC trophies since 1996. Same amount as Leeds. So even they can be classified as being just as successful in terms of successes as Leeds although, naturally, not in the same class when reaching major finals.

Leeds are the most successful team in the SL era. They have unprecedented success. Saints might have more CC's but ask them what they ment after we handed them their s on GF night?

Leeds have won the GF the biggest prize the most. This out ways CC's everyone in the game knows th GF is much more important than the cup fact.

Everyone knows the GF is the biggest prize. Knowbody has won a GF 5 times only Leeds.

Statement 1: Incorrect - you've been disproved on that front already. I'm pretty sure the Challenge Cup is a valued competition. I seemingly remember your lot banging on about how important it would be to win it last season as you hadn't won it in so long.

Leeds have won the GF the most but only because it didn't exist for the first two seasons of SL. In terms of titles, you've both won the same. Therefore, it's a moot point. You are the better side at this current day. Across SL, no. You're only convincing yourself.

Now you're twisting it back to Super League only as I said you would. The sign of a man who has been proved wrong so starts to backtrack. Keep digging. Plus, see above post regarding Grand Finals.

Just admit Leeds have won the GF more than any other team (because they have) and will call it evens with argument twisting.

Well, I can't argue with that because stats say they have (but only because it didn't exist when Saints won the League title back in 1996 and were termed champions). I've admitted that: now will you admit that St Helens are a more successful side across all competitions in total and are the more successful side in the 'salary cap' era as you termed it.

Then we'll call it evens.

No!

In total of trophies yes saints have more. But I question the value of different trophies and records set in the game.