Saints domination - boring?

[Davo5]

54 minutes ago, yipyee said:

You can have 2 clubs dominating at the same time, saints dominated the week to week, Leeds got the calls in the big games and won the GFs..

Nice to see you’ve got over all those GF defeats.

[David Dockhouse Host]

12 hours ago, Damien said:

It a bit late to change your own parameters. If you are talking league winners as being Champions then there is simply no need to stop at 26 as there was no difference in format to what went before. That's just being very selective to suit your own argument.

Its no different than me changing the argument to 30 years and adding another 4 Wigan league wins and another 4 Wigan Challenge Cups into the mix. Or saying the last 15 years where Leeds have been the dominant force winning it 7 times and Wigan and Saints 4 each. You are trying to be awfully specific in your window to try and back up your opinion with 26 years (now) being a period that starts with Saints winning 3 out of 5 and finishes with Saints winning 3 out of 3.

You are quite correct though in that it seems to be only two people that seem overly bothered by it and see it the way you do.

I think there's some significant differences when we went to SL, summer rugby and full time professionals the main two I can think of.

So I think it's reasonable to discuss all SL years

[David Dockhouse Host]

51 minutes ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

I think there's some significant differences when we went to SL, summer rugby and full time professionals the main two I can think of.

So I think it's reasonable to discuss all SL years

Not sure why you laughed Damien? You seemed to say we should only  discuss GFs as before then there was no difference, I was trying to show there was, do you not accept the game was changed when we went to SL? 

[Damien]

8 hours ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

Not sure why you laughed Damien? You seemed to say we should only  discuss GFs as before then there was no difference, I was trying to show there was, do you not accept the game was changed when we went to SL? 

Because you have not read the thread and are trying to shift the debate from a teams dominance for the last 25 years to nitpick about what you think is reasonable.  This so you can rehash myths about the likes of full time professionals which have already been discussed. There was 2 months between the 1995-1996 season and the first Super League season. Players did not transform overnight and very many were full time professionals anyway. The format of how the league was decided also did not change which was the key point that my post replied to. Summer rugby is irrelevant to a teams dominance.

The timeline selected was not mine but was changed to try and strengthen a very weak argument. You think then changing this to 26 isn't being selective, I do. This is especially so when the said poster originally said 25 which in itself was selective. This could have instead been 30, 20 or 15 which would have all painted a different picture. Even 26 does not show dominance so what you think is reasonable changes nothing.

Edited April 23, 2022 by Damien

[David Dockhouse Host]

2 hours ago, Damien said:

Because you have not read the thread and are trying to shift the debate from a teams dominance for the last 25 years to nitpick about what you think is reasonable.  This so you can rehash myths about the likes of full time professionals which have already been discussed. There was 2 months between the 1995-1996 season and the first Super League season. Players did not transform overnight and very many were full time professionals anyway. The format of how the league was decided also did not change which was the key point that my post replied to. Summer rugby is irrelevant to a teams dominance.

The timeline selected was not mine but was changed to try and strengthen a very weak argument. You think then changing this to 26 isn't being selective, I do. This is especially so when the said poster originally said 25 which in itself was selective. This could have instead been 30, 20 or 15 which would have all painted a different picture. Even 26 does not show dominance so what you think is reasonable changes nothing.

I haven't re hashed any myths, and you cannot in any way know what I was thinking and make that claim. 

The discussion about full time pros prior to SL is a different discussion and certainly not a myth, FT versus PT is a huge advantage and not to be ignored. However this wasn't my main point.

My point is you claimed pre GF SL titles were irrelevant as it's the same as before SL, I pointed out I don't believe this is the case and gave reasons why. This isn't nitpicking at all, you say that to try to trivialise the point made which I stand by. If you don't agree that's fine, but I think it's perfectly reasonable to include titles in all of SL when discussing SL and trying to make a point. Whether one team has been dominant over that time can be debated.   

In response to the main thread, I believe St Helens are miles ahead of other clubs at the moment and worrying to see the same few teams capable of challenging consistently. Salford, Huddersfield and Castleford etc. Have had occasional good seasons but are usually top half rather than genuine contenders each year. Only St Helens, Wigan and Leeds (Bradford briefly) have been dominant and for me I would rather other teams have a genuine chance of sharing around that dominance over a ten year period. The fact that the same teams are pretty much at the top(Leeds not so much currently but are a big team who I believe will return) as 20 years ago isn't good for ongoing interest IMO.

As a St Helener you would think I would like them to win everything but I'd much prefer to see Toulouse or Sheffield or York etc. Really push the top teams. No point wing the best team of a small league, other teams winning would even out the competition to the betterment and greater value of the whole product IMO. 

The problems I believe come from the small pool of investment across RL, the academy system that favours top teams and the gap between SL and the rest(money distributions, on field strength etc.) , things that are not easily fixed. 

The GF is another debate, should we have a league system? We are obsessed with dead rubbers in RL, and the GF is a big advert for the sport so would be a great loss to lose it. I don't believe in dead rubbers, it's irrelevant were a team is in the league when you play a match you want to win. Football doesn't seem to have an issue with dead rubbers. The only true system without any dead rubbers would be a knockout comp.

I accept the flaws in the play off system but believe it's the best for our sport.

I also prefer a 14 team league which should help reduce the likelihood of the same teams dominance as team such as Leigh could spend big to compete but still have an issue with the salary cap which in part is down to academy flaws.

 

[Sir Kevin Sinfield]

Saints domination, they couldn’t even beat Cas