: Tue Oct 13, 2009 9:30 am  

Fully wrote:

Huddersfield have three wooden spoons, what's your point? In all reality, they should have been relegated too but they were saved by crap teams in the division below.

The fact we got promoted at the first attempt both times shows we don't deserve to be in NL1.

My point is in the last decade Wakefield have been the superior team.

: Tue Oct 13, 2009 10:08 am  

stantrin wrote:

My point is in the last decade Wakefield have been the superior team.

In your own head. Unfortunately, the majority of other people, including neutrals, would probably disagree.

: Tue Oct 13, 2009 10:17 am  

stantrin wrote:

My point is in the last decade Wakefield have been the superior team.

Over the past 5 years, yes. Over the 5 years from 1999 to 2004, no - consistently much lower.

FINAL LEAGUE PSOISTIONS:

Wakey Cas
2009 7 8
2008 8 12
2007 - -
2006 10 11
2005 - -
2004 6 12
2003 11 8
2002 11 6
2001 11 6
2000 10 5
1999 11 5

AVE: 9.4 8.1

: Tue Oct 13, 2009 10:20 am  

Fully wrote:

In your own head. Unfortunately, the majority of other people, including neutrals, would probably disagree.

2 relegations and a wooden spoon.
How can you say that.

: Tue Oct 13, 2009 10:21 am  

jourdmart wrote:

Over the past 5 years, yes. Over the 5 years from 1999 to 2004, no - consistently much lower.

FINAL LEAGUE PSOISTIONS:

Wakey Cas
2009 7 8
2008 8 12
2007 - -
2006 10 11
2005 - -
2004 6 12
2003 11 8
2002 11 6
2001 11 6
2000 10 5
1999 11 5

AVE: 9.4 8.1

So you are just discounting our 2007 and 2005 seasons???

It is not our fault you were not in the league (well l suppose you could argue that point ).

: Tue Oct 13, 2009 11:10 am  

deeHell wrote:

Wakefield missed the first 3 seasons of SL, the first season was out of our control, after we was evicted from the SL project in a act of gross injustice.

Castleford have missed 2 seasons of SL due to not been able to cut it on the field. Two embarrassing relegations, on both occasions the fatal blow coming from Wakefield.

You also have to consider Castleford great fortune in staying in SL. If the franchise system hadn't been introduced Cas would of been relegated last season, which imo would of been justice. You should be punished not rewarded for having such an uncompetitive season.

A change in the rules for play off qualifying also benefited Cas, any other year a 8th place finish would got you jack!

Wakefield are a better club, deal with it!

Regarding paragraph two. The first time we were relegated it was not the fatal blow from Wakefield. If you bother to find out we had to batter whoever we were playing that day and your lot had to be battered by whoever you were playing that day. We also saved your teams bacon in 2000 ( IIRC ) by beating Salford at their ground and the thank you from the Wakefield team to ours was, I think, a crate of booze ( do correct me if I'm wrong ). So have Wakefield always been competitive in SL ?

: Tue Oct 13, 2009 11:28 am  

jourdmart wrote:

Over the past 5 years, yes. Over the 5 years from 1999 to 2004, no - consistently much lower.

FINAL LEAGUE PSOISTIONS:

Wakey Cas
2009 7 8
2008 8 12
2007 - -
2006 10 11
2005 - -
2004 6 12
2003 11 8
2002 11 6
2001 11 6
2000 10 5
1999 11 5

AVE: 9.4 8.1

I get that to 6-4 to the mighty trin in the last 10 seasons. And by the way we finished 5th in 2009.

: Tue Oct 13, 2009 11:37 am  

stantrin wrote:

I get that to 6-4 to the mighty trin in the last 10 seasons. And by the way we finished 5th in 2009.

Try counting again.

: Tue Oct 13, 2009 11:42 am  

SimonBarrett wrote:

So you are just discounting our 2007 and 2005 seasons???

It is not our fault you were not in the league (well l suppose you could argue that point ).

You can't compare relative finishes when we were in differnt leagues.

: Tue Oct 13, 2009 11:45 am  

stantrin wrote:

And by the way we finished 5th in 2009.

Quite right - the table I looked at had the final weekend results missing.