Because despite this new amazing level playing field since nasty Wigan were stopped from winning everything, it has still brought the same number of different sides to the final than it did before. What exactly has been "levelled up"

It is still dependant on who has the most money and the best academies etc etc just as it did in 1988, 1992 and 1995.

Er

A Salary Cap
Every team being full-time
Improved S & C at each club
All of the traditional big teams having Academies/Reserves
Sport science and access to technology to prevent injuries and fatigue
Better pitches
Better training facilities

All just off the top of my head

When was the last time a club paid a big transfer fee?

Appreciate that, and when people throw full time, most money, bought the league etc at us rather than acknowledge how good we were....we get defensive.

I said something a few weeks ago.........swap Wigan for St Helens the last 3 seasons (or at least 2) and we have the COVID card and playing less games than everyone else thrown at us by everyone involved in the game.......including Sky commentators. It literally happens every time we mention our history.

Yes I agree and understand why you get defensive

And fair point that you would have the same accusations. Annoying isn't it

A Salary Cap - That not every club spends up to so some sides have a better squad than others
Every team being full-time - Nothing stopping that in 1992. We followed suit why didn't everyone else.
Improved S & C at each club - See above
All of the traditional big teams having Academies/Reserves - See above (although pretty sure most sides had an alliance and an academy back then)
Sport science and access to technology to prevent injuries and fatigue - Give you that one, but again some sides have more money to spend on these than others
Better pitches - You'd hope so
Better training facilities - We used to train on a field at the back of the Kop

All of that has led to less league winners in the last 25 years than the previous 25 though

Every team ran a reserve side back then, most teams had academy/colts teams Every team "could " spend what they wanted, it was their decision.
Did Saints spend the same as Liverpool City or Wigan the same as Blackpool Borough?

As I've said often enough Andy Farrell was an apprentice joiner with Wigan council when he played in his 1st Challenge Cup Final, watch his recent interview with Kris Radlinski.

The salary cap whereby all teams can spend up to a pre determined ££ was only introduced in 2002.

That sounds like it’d be expensive for clubs

Personally I think it’s a great thing. Less bans all round please

Not sure it’s as much of a shambles as allowing Bateman to use up his suspension on games he was never going to play, if we’re honest.

The whole thing is a shambles. It has been all year

Don’t think it’s comparable. Would depend on the tackle and how bad it was and the offence. A lot of the time deeming it careless rather than reckless doesn’t let them escape a ban

The thing here was the first panel essentially ruled that he wasn’t guilty of the charge he was up for, but charged him with it anyway. It’s an absolute farce and you’d expect a lot better from a panel that was headed by a judge.

I’ve been hearing this line trotted out for years about the quality of the game being much worse than before etc. Every time I watch a game back from the early and mid 00s which are considered the golden era of super league, I can’t help but see how absolutely awful the level of defending was. Yes the attack was great, but the standard of defending was dog and it makes the attacking look a lot better. And you had teams regularly getting pumped by 70/80 points. Don’t think it speaks to the quality really being loads better.

Reality is every generation says this about whatever sport they’re talking about. It’s just nostalgia and nothing more. In reality the game is 1000x faster than it was back then. More handling errors probably because of that fact but in my opinion at least it’s a much better spectacle because of that increase in intensity.

I saw a Saints fan say on Twitter that he refuses to have it that players now are worse than the early 2000’s across the league and therefore this is a side comparable and maybe better than any side in this era of Superleague. What he is ignoring is that a a good few of our best players are now in the NRL and the quality of import is drastically down on those of the early 2000’s. If Saints fans want to think it’s nostalgia to believe sides including Lyon, Long, Cunningham, Graham, Prime Roby, Sculthorpe etc wouldn’t comfortably beat this one then so be it.

You’re beating all before you to Grand Finals and that’s great for you but if we compare the teams you’ve beat in these finals to teams losing finals in the early 2000’s it’s chalk and cheese. We lost a final to you guys with a side containing Radlinski, Renouf, Jason Robinson, Terry Newton, Andy Farrell etc. That side would’ve put 30 on our final team in 2020 and would beat this Saints side with some to spare and again believe that is nostalgia all you like but the overall quality of the teams over here are as low as I can remember.

Saints are the best side of the last 5 years by an absolute mile but I’d take a few teams just in the Superleague era ahead of them. Look at the World Club Challenge results from the early 2000’s to recent years and try and tell me the quality of sides hasn’t dropped off a cliff here.

I agree, it’s all a complete and utter shambles and debating which decision is more shambolic then the next is pointless really. I look at Martin missing two play off games for his ‘bad challenge’ and then I see Knowles playing in a Grand Final and Bateman using games up in B fixtures and it sums it all up. An absolute farce and self harm for the game.