When a league competition becomes a knock out comp in its latter stages the possibility of unexpected results is very real. Thus an injury to a key player(s) in the final or a Ben Flower type incident has a much bigger consequence than it would in a standard league match.

I think that we have performed as a top team recently, maybe not the year before last. As you say "for the top teams" means that there must be more than one yardstick to measure success, or is there only one top team per year?

I thought Richard Agar was being groomed to take over from Smith. Is he still with the club ? Haven't seen him sat with TS this season.
From the TV obviously.

Ah!! just seen the answer on a different thread, as you were folks.

Sorry, I should be clearer.

"Top teams"
Definition: Professional Rugby League teams that have won 1 or more Grand Finals in the previous 10 years.

So if we had of won three Grand Finals during the Cullen era but none since, would that not mean we're a top team?

We're a top team and Tony Smith has made us one. Weve gone from whipping boys and perennial under achievers to a well respected club who are there or there abouts when the honours are given out.

We've finished in the top three five times in eight seasons under Smith. In that time we've won the LLS twice, Challenge Cup three times and been to three Grand Finals.

Smith may or may not lead us to that elusive Grand Final victory but even if he does I'm sure there'll still be those who claim he should've achieved it much quicker.

Smith's got his faults but to claim he's not made us a top team is ludicrous.

Yeah like Bradford. Once a top team, now not. Recency of achievement needs to be factored in.

He asked for my definition of "top teams". I gave it. If you don't like it, I frankly don't care.

Trust me mate, I couldn't care less myself what you or your definitions equate to, especially as you just seem to be making it up as you go along. It's all about opinions at the end of the day and I think we're a top team, one that Tony Smith has helped us become - you don't, then fine.

Anyhow, here's hoping for two points tomorrow night, it'd be a great achievement for little old Warrington to get one over on the mighty Wigan. Hopefully it'll lift all the doom and gloom in here, keep Smith in a job for another week, lift us off bottom and perhaps you and a few more of our fans might have something positive to say.

No need to apologise at all, you were clear or have been clear up to this point where you stood and also IMO and one or two others incorrect, if an OPINION can be categorised as such.

Your definition above, where has that come from, is it universally recognised or just something that you made up to substantiate your argument, I suspect the latter?

I'm saddened (the emotion not the poster) that you say that you don't care, as I think that you do, we all do don't we, otherwise what is the point about making a point?

Wires71 is like the Nigel Farage of this forum, he can sit on the outside and make populist statements which will chime with the public mood when people are angry anyway, he isn't going to be making the big decisions so he can criticise Smith for not winning a Grand Final and say well why don't we get rid of Smith and get Hasler, Bellamy or Bennett in.

Now if the board gets rid of Tony Smith, Wires71 knows deep down that we aren't going to get Hasler, Bellamy or Bennett, and he will just criticise the board for their lack of ambition in whoever they appoint, and say he was right all along but the board should have gone for one of his suggestions. Just like Farage is going to tell us Brexit would have been great if Theresa May had listened to him but the Tories messed it up.

For the board it's a different position because they actually have to make the decisions and are aware that it's not a binary situation "win the GF" vs "not win the GF". Not winning the GF comes in a wide range of outcomes. We didn't win the GF under Smith in 2011 and we didn't win the GF under Plange in 2002 but those kind of seasons would not be seen as equal outcomes in the eyes of the fans. And if we jettison Smith for an unknown, unproven or proven mediocre coach there's a high risk we will be moving in the 2002 direction rather than 2011.

For the board, the driver of the decision on the coach at any time is, who is the best coach available to benefit the future interests of Warrington Wolves. That won't guarantee silverware and if the option they choose as coach doesn't deliver a GF then the board will be criticised by Wires71 and others on here but that's what comes with being the decision maker. They don't have the luxury of being free from the constraints of what is available which people on a forum do.

I didn't just make it up, but I thought it useful to the debate to clarify. Do you remember when we had the concept of a "top 4 or big 4". Leeds, Bradford, Wigan, Saints? These four constitute the only teams to have won a GF. Bradford, with 4 wins, have sadly faded but I think it is reasonable to latterly refer to Leeds (7 wins), Saints (6 wins) and Wigan (4 wins) as top teams now. It's of course objective, as DAG so eloquently points out, in my view Wire do not classify under this criteria as a "top team". If we widen it to include Hub Cap winners then Hull and Huddersfield are "top teams", or challenge cup wins then we must include Sheffield. So do you sort of see my reckoning even if you don't agree ?

And of course I care about Warrington. Supported man and boy for coming up to 40 years.