gilmour , pryce and anderson in both 03 and 06 teams

You forget how good a career Lee Gilmour had. He also won a Grand Final with Wigan in 1998.

I think it’s worth bearing in mind that the position of Super League in relation to the NRL has changed greatly in the last decade. Teams were generally able to keep hold of their top talent (e.g Long, Cunningham, Peacock, Sculthorpe, Fielden), who these days would go to the NRL/Union (e.g Burgess, Graham, Tomkins) and teams were able to bring over a better calibre of player (e.g Lyon, Barrett, Vainikolo, Richards) who wouldn’t really look at the Super League these days. As such I think the standard of teams at the top was a bit higher than it is currently.

I’ll go for the ’03 Bulls for that reason and the fact that there were four legitimate contenders to win trophies that year (Bradford, Leeds, Saints, Wigan) compared to three in ’06 (Bradford, Leeds, Saints) and ’15 (Leeds, Saints, Wigan). This Leeds side is undoubtedly a great side but I think the other two also pinch it on star factor. If you were to pick a 17 of super league players since its inception I’d argure there isn’t any Leeds player of ’15 who would get in, whereas the ’03 Bulls have Vainikolo, Fielden and Peacock and the ’06 Saints have Lyon, Long and Cunningham (the memory plays tricks so I can’t remember whether how good Sculthorpe, Roby and Graham were at that point).

Totally disagree. I think the reason these players stand out for you, is because the Super League Competition was weaker than it is now, and teams are nearer to each other than ever before. I also disagree that British Players are of poorer quality to Australian or New Zealand Players, individually. Also keeping talent is a dead rubber argument because who has left to Union or the NRL that would have featured in the Top End of Super League.....Nobody.

I think the version of Peacock who would get in the "all time team" is the one who played for Leeds in any one of 2007-2012, not the Bradford 2003 version.

Poppycock.

The leeds team of 15 would outmuscle the bulls team of 03, and be able to match 06 saints on class and beat them with heart.

Both those teams had [i[up$ss easy[/u[/i formats to win the treble in. Super 8's is ridiculously hard.

I’m not saying that Aus/NZ players are necessarily better than English ones; I’m saying that being able to sign good Aus/NZ players whilst being able to retain your great English players as well makes for a better team than only being able to sign average Aus/NZ players and retain good English players. That’s the difference between SL in the early –mid 00’s and now IMO.

You surely can’t be claiming there’s anyone in super league right now as good as an in form: Lyon, Richards, Vainikolo, Long, Fielden, Graham, Peacock, Cunningham, A.Farrell or Sculthorpe? I don’t think any of those players would stay in SL/come in the first place if they had been born 10 years later. They would all be in the NRL or Union IMO.


Off the top of my head I reckon all of: Sam Burgess, Sam Tomkins, James Graham, Joel Tomkins, Gareth Ellis, Owen Farrell, Kyle Eastmond and Chris Ashton would have won trophies with SL teams had they stayed.

I'm not sure I agree. In 2005 you made the semis, in 2007 you won the league. Despite the play offs, in the actual league you were only 2 points from finishing second in 2006. I don't see what would suddenly have made you terrible in 2006. It wasn't that you were terrible, we were just so far ahead that year.



Saints won the World Club Challenge in 2007 too if that's what you're referring to. Obviously I'm just as biased as all of you are

But for me, Saints were the most impressive. To only lose 4 games all year, by a collective margin of 10 points, is a degree of dominance that is unparalleled. For comparison, before the Super 8s even started, this year you had lost 6 and drawn 1, including a 15 point loss to Wigan, a 14 point loss to Widnes, and 19 point loss to Warrington.

We were terrible. I remember watching us that year constantly waiting for us to kick on but we never did. I think 06 was a bit of a down year for a few of the big sides, Bradford, Wigan, Leeds, all seemed to underachieve, i mean Hull and an average Hudds got to the GF and CC final. even a workmanlike Salford finished 5th.

I dont say that to take away from Saints, I dont think either Saints or Wigan would argue this has been a stand out year for them, and Warrington have had a down year,

As I say, its very difficult to compare them and their respective schedules and its probably a hiding to nothing. All i can say is that I dont think Saints would have chosen doing the treble under this system over the one they did.

I get your logic about the loses, but in 2004 leeds only lost three games, unfortunately only one of those was a challenge cup game against saints, in 2006 saints had a pretty easy cup run, beating only one side who qualified for the play offs so its all bit of a guess really.

No, I'm referring to the double of World Club and Super League in the same season. People said it couldn't be done, as you had to peak at the start and the end of the season.

True for other teams. Not for us!

Fibble fobble.

Leeds were mediocre in 2006. They were 2 points off second because the league was so weak. Saints had a very weak league and an easy format, in comparison to now. Wigan, a potential threat to saints when they have their act together were almost relegated. Salford finished 5th, just from having Malcolm Alker do a whole sh*t load of tackles. Bradford were just starting their decline into oblivion. Warrington had Paul Cullen coaching them. Leeds were so bad they lost to huddersfield and warrington (both of whom mid table turd) in 2 knock out games when the season was on the line. Hull finished 2nd on account of having John Kear sacked and an upsurge in from under Peter Sharp. They weren't a serious contender to saints. Just a midtable team overachieving for a couple of seasons.

The league was a joke.

I've pointed out previously those "flaws" in our 2004 season. Saints 2004 campaign was similar to our 2006 campaign. Wigan were on the slide that saw them miss the playoffs e next two years and Bradford whilst our closest challengers had hit their peak in 2003 (they'd only succeed again in 2005 due to a few certain circumstances......Senior's injury, Newton injuring Saints players, Salary Cap breaches).

Just to add, part of leeds treble actually included retaining a trophy won the previous season, which is something the bulls 03 team can't lay claim to. I guess you could say the saints 06 team did this, if you want to count retaining LLS, which is part of the treble.

Saints losing only a few games all season looks good but it also pointed to a weak league. Even leeds were able to coast thorough games and win by 40. It's probably around then that AP had his flat track bully league table.

With maybe the exception of wakey there were no gimme games this season

Hang on, 06 CC final was in August

Peacock was Man of Steel in 2003. I don't think this period of his career should be underestimated or swept aside due to his later exploits at Leeds.

He became a different kind of player at Leeds (less of an individual line-breaker and more of a pack-leader and metre-maker). Difficult to compare the two eras but many felt after his first season at Headingley that it wasn't quite working out (2006). You may recall the big debates on here about whether or not he should have played prop forward. Thankfully he did make the transition by 2007.

Agree with this and what Flex has been saying. Saints had no real credible opposition in 2006. All the other big clubs were in the doldrums that year. The very fact that they played Hull (remember that great all-conquering B&W side, yeah right!) in the final speaks volumes. 2003 and 2015 were far more competitive.

Leeds were below average from the aftermath of the 2005 Challenge Cup Final until the latter half of the 2007 season when they turned it around after Tony Smith announced he was leaving.