Tell that to all the sports that don't, for example, have a salary cap. There is no such thing as a level playing field in sport. How was Saints' "COVID year" title a "level playing field" for example. Then there's injuries etc. No title is EVER won on a level playing field.

As usual you're talking your one eyed, selective nonsense.

And they played less games than others in the covid era

Wigan went fully pro in 1895 and prevented every club from following suit or from signing any big players. The likes of Saints, Leeds, Hull and Widnes spending big money on Aussie players was all a mirage and didn't really happen. The odd time they did come over they took a job on the local brickie site too.

Wigan also didn't have a tonne of local talent to pick, they were all made at other clubs and then we stole them with bags of money. Only Wigan signed big players from RU too.

Naughty Wigan holding the sport back.

The quality of the game peaked around 2002 - 2015, who won the most titles in that period?

This current saints team have dominated a particularly weak era for SL even their biggest wind up merchant reminds us of that.

Can you include it from 2001? Just so that Bradford have 3 Super League titles and 5 Grand Final appearances

Leeds = 7 Titles (8 finals)
St Helens = 3 Titles (8 finals)
Bradford = 3 Titles (5 finals)
Wigan = 2 Titles (6 finals)
Warrington = 0 Titles (2 finals)
Hull FC = 0 Titles (1 final)

Mad to think that Bradford were the only side to beat Leeds in a Grand Final over that period and there were some really bloody good Wigan, Saints and Warrington teams in that period. Really shows just how good Leeds were and the players they had that could consistently do it on the big stage.

but none of them compare to the current Saints team 'apparently'

Tbf I’ve recently had some time off work and I’ve watched a fair few old games involving all those teams and some World Club Challenges.

The game has changed massively. Even from 2001 to the product on field of 2015 there were massive differences. In my opinion you can’t compare eras. There’s a lot more that goes into breaking a defensive line these days, more structure in defence (unless your Wakey). Teams looked knackered quicker because fitness weren’t as good and no-one wrestled in the ruck. Would the likes of Anderson and Vagana who were massive cope with the fitter props of Walmsley and Lees? I’m not sure. It’s a difficult one which is why comparing eras are difficult.

What I can say. Is look at the last 10 years. St Helens have been the best side or at least one of the top 2/3. With 4 on the bounce. This St Helens team is this eras Leeds (2004-2015).

Arguably it’s harder these days to win the comp as there are more teams able to compete. Even the likes of Salford, Warrington and Cas have been there or there abouts over the last 10 years. Catalans and Huddersfield have teams that can compete. Back then there was Bradford, Saints and Wigan. Leeds were there or there abouts until 2004. And on one occasion I think London did well.

The main thing that has frustrated me with the game in the ladt decade or so, is that it has stagnated tactically. If you watch footage of the game over it's history, every 10 or 15 years, the game looks very different. However, this evolution seemed to stop at around 2010, after first Nathan Brown introduced wrestling at the ruck, and then Maguire took it to another level. The only attacking innovation we've seen since then has been the use of the full back as an extra pivot.
The game is overdue some new ideas.

Potentially why the 6 again rule came in. In order to stop the wrestling and allow quicker rucks, allowing more breaks in the field of play due to retreating defenders. But now people want rid of that rule. So what else could we do to stop the stagnating of the game?

Superleague peaked in 2005 - FACT