That isn't saying much - Senior is not fr off being as good as there is still!!

Gidley was a top player when he was in Aus but he was well passed his best when he came here - Lyon was in his prime.

Top centres are a rare breed - the handling skill of a halfback with pace of a winger and the power of a second rower.

Apart from the obvious Inglis, Hodges, Cooper - my wish list would include Chris Lawrence from the Tigers

But we are talking about a specific season where you claim he was $hite so Penny's inclusion is irrelevant. Regardless of how you feel he still got the nod as one of the top 2 centres in SL that season. I'll agree he was poor in 2010 but to claim that he was $hite for 2.5 seasons in SL is wrong.

There have certainly been some poor players and decisions made when naming the Dream Team that's for sure. I won't dispute that. I still don't buy that Gidley was a bad player in 2009 and I used this as a yardstick to prove it. If he was $hite then I dread to think what the other 26 centres in Super League were like!

Pretty $hite! Average at best!

So we're saying that the other 26 were average at best. Gidley was better but he was still $hite?

Great logic.

He wasn't a bad player in 2009. He was one of the better centres in SL in 2009 despite being average and a shadow of his former self during his NRL career. I merely took issue with your use of his Dream Team inclusion as a justification given the amount of tripe and unfathomable selections included in them over the years.

Unfortunately, we are witnessing an era of ordinariness where SL playing standards have steadily dragged the game down to rock bottom mediocrity, therefore the dream team inclusion of the ordinary... often expressed as sensational, inventive or international class... is the prolefeed necessary to keep all the ts content with the product currently on offer.

No they are all $hite or average at best! It's you who think gidley was the best centre in sl in a saints shirt! I say gidley for the most part was crap!

but that doesn't detract from the fact SL is full of average to $hite centres.

Quote ="Sal Paradise"Really How long did Inglis play at stand off before he was moved 5/6 games? '" Here go sal! Maybe you missed inglis at 6? m.watoday.com.au/rugby-league/le ... 1exs4.html?

Quote ="Sal Paradise"Really How long did Inglis play at stand off before he was moved 5/6 games? '" Here go sal! Maybe you missed inglis at 6? m.watoday.com.au/rugby-league/le ... 1exs4.html?

Quote ="sgtwilko"Here go sal! Maybe you missed inglis at 6? m.watoday.com.au/rugby-league/le ... 1exs4.html?'" Not sure why given its success Melbourne brought Finch in to play 5/8? Easy to win GF when you spend double what every other team does?

Quote ="sgtwilko"Here go sal! Maybe you missed inglis at 6? m.watoday.com.au/rugby-league/le ... 1exs4.html?'" Not sure why given its success Melbourne brought Finch in to play 5/8? Easy to win GF when you spend double what every other team does?

In 2007, Inglis played 20 times for Melbourne Storm which included 19 appearances at five-eighth, and once at fullback. He also won the Clive Churchill medal in the Grand Final of that season at five-eighth.

In 2008, Inglis played 22 times for Melbourne Storm which included 21 appearances at five-eighth and once from the bench.

In 2009, Inglis played the opening two rounds for Melbourne Storm at five-eighth. He was shifted to centre due to weaknesses apparent in the centre positions at the club and was replaced by Cameron Smith as five-eighth in Rounds 3 and 4, followed by James Maloney in Rounds 5 and 6. Brett Finch arrived at Melbourne and made his debut at five-eighth for Melbourne in Round 7 of that year.

Not quite just the 5/6 games at five-eighth, eh?

HTH

Fair point - I stand corrected

Well we got there in the end

Blimey, I never thought I'd ever see a post like this on here.

Sometimes you have to admit you got it wrong?

Somebody should tell Gareth that

Really.

Did Melbourne send the best team they could muster for last season's WCC then?

Did Inglis play, did Cameron Smith play?
So did Leeds play a full strength Melbourne no!! but a more worthy victory than the one against Canterbury?

Think we all agree the victory over Melbourne was the start of the overseas sides taking the WCC seriously - how many did Leeds/SL sides win subsequently?

That's not what tvoc was saying is it?
If by taking it seriously you mean making sure they paid their squad even more than they were allowed then in Melbournes case you are right.
Manly took it very seriously and won comfortably whereas St George planned a weeks holiday and still won it.

On Melbourne - had it been a GF would Inglis and Smith played? so was it the best they could muster or the best they chose to muster - only the Storm know?

The difference was St George didn't need to plan like Manley - they were that superior - good job any SL didn't play them now it would have been a serious embarrassment.

Quote ="Sal Paradise"Did Inglis play, did Cameron Smith play? So did Leeds play a full strength Melbourne no!! but a more worthy victory than the one against Canterbury?'" Did Inglis play - eh ... Yes Did Smith play - eh ... Yes Quote ="Sal Paradise"Think we all agree the victory over Melbourne was the start of the overseas sides taking the WCC seriously - how many did Leeds/SL sides win subsequently?'" Leeds lost V Melbourne last season (2010) which is the game 'we' were discussing last season not the Leeds win from 2008. You remember it's the one you said we'd have to wait and see which team Melbourne put out in Round 1 of the NRL season to see how serious they were taking the WCC. You remember it was the thread you never returned to: viewtopic.php?f=17&t=446309&start=61

Quote ="Sal Paradise"Did Inglis play, did Cameron Smith play? So did Leeds play a full strength Melbourne no!! but a more worthy victory than the one against Canterbury?'" Did Inglis play - eh ... Yes Did Smith play - eh ... Yes Quote ="Sal Paradise"Think we all agree the victory over Melbourne was the start of the overseas sides taking the WCC seriously - how many did Leeds/SL sides win subsequently?'" Leeds lost V Melbourne last season (2010) which is the game 'we' were discussing last season not the Leeds win from 2008. You remember it's the one you said we'd have to wait and see which team Melbourne put out in Round 1 of the NRL season to see how serious they were taking the WCC. You remember it was the thread you never returned to: viewtopic.php?f=17&t=446309&start=61

Quote ="tvoc"Did Inglis play - eh ... Yes Did Smith play - eh ... Yes Leeds lost V Melbourne last season (2010) which is the game 'we' were discussing last season not the Leeds win from 2008. You remember it's the one you said we'd have to wait and see which team Melbourne put out in Round 1 of the NRL season to see how serious they were taking the WCC. You remember it was the thread you never returned to: viewtopic.php?f=17&t=446309'" Sorry thought you were talking about the game we actually won. Did melbourne take it seriously - the only only person who really knows is Craig Bellamy - end of. Only a fool would believe the WCC is as important to a NRL side as the regular league is? The reason the NRL sides are now winning is an illustration of the widening gap in standards between the two leagues - something that was well exposed when the quad nations was played - would you not agree.

Quote ="tvoc"Did Inglis play - eh ... Yes Did Smith play - eh ... Yes Leeds lost V Melbourne last season (2010) which is the game 'we' were discussing last season not the Leeds win from 2008. You remember it's the one you said we'd have to wait and see which team Melbourne put out in Round 1 of the NRL season to see how serious they were taking the WCC. You remember it was the thread you never returned to: viewtopic.php?f=17&t=446309'" Sorry thought you were talking about the game we actually won. Did melbourne take it seriously - the only only person who really knows is Craig Bellamy - end of. Only a fool would believe the WCC is as important to a NRL side as the regular league is? The reason the NRL sides are now winning is an illustration of the widening gap in standards between the two leagues - something that was well exposed when the quad nations was played - would you not agree.

I linked to the thread that was running last season. See for yourself from this post forward viewtopic.php?f=17&t=446309&start=61. You set the criteria: Quote ="Sal Paradise"One thing is pretty certain, Melbourne will field their strongest side available for round one of the NRL competition. The nature/competitiveness of that league demands that. That is the comparison that should be made with the team that plays on Sunday IMO - if the two sides are pretty similar 1/2 changes then that is a good indication that Melbourne have given the game the gravitas some on here believe it deserves - however if the side show 6/7 changes then you know they have treated the WCC as a warm up game. Time will tell'" Time did tell (1 change in Round 1 of the NRL season), again and again and again, that Melbourne had sent and played the best squad that was available to them despite your earlier claim that: Quote ="Sal Paradise"The WCC is the least important of the so-called major games, so important to Melbourne that they have left half a side in Australia targeted with being fit for round 1 of the NRL. '" It was proven (by your own terms) that Melbourne had sent the very best squad that they had available (notwithstanding several injuries) to the WCC game V Leeds in 2010. Unfortunately you failed to contribute further back then but here's your chance now.

I linked to the thread that was running last season. See for yourself from this post forward viewtopic.php?f=17&t=446309&start=61. You set the criteria: Quote ="Sal Paradise"One thing is pretty certain, Melbourne will field their strongest side available for round one of the NRL competition. The nature/competitiveness of that league demands that. That is the comparison that should be made with the team that plays on Sunday IMO - if the two sides are pretty similar 1/2 changes then that is a good indication that Melbourne have given the game the gravitas some on here believe it deserves - however if the side show 6/7 changes then you know they have treated the WCC as a warm up game. Time will tell'" Time did tell (1 change in Round 1 of the NRL season), again and again and again, that Melbourne had sent and played the best squad that was available to them despite your earlier claim that: Quote ="Sal Paradise"The WCC is the least important of the so-called major games, so important to Melbourne that they have left half a side in Australia targeted with being fit for round 1 of the NRL. '" It was proven (by your own terms) that Melbourne had sent the very best squad that they had available (notwithstanding several injuries) to the WCC game V Leeds in 2010. Unfortunately you failed to contribute further back then but here's your chance now.

Quote ="tvoc"I linked to the thread that was running last season. See for yourself from this post forward viewtopic.php?f=17&t=446309&start=61. You set the criteria: Time did tell (1 change in Round 1 of the NRL season), again and again and again, that Melbourne had sent and played the best squad that was available to them despite your earlier claim that: It was proven (by your own terms) that Melbourne had sent the very best squad that they had available (notwithstanding several injuries) to the WCC game V Leeds in 2010. Unfortunately you failed to contribute further back then but here's your chance now.'" My response is simple the only people who know how seriously Melbourne took this game are the coaches and players of the Storm. Anything else is opinion - is yours any more valid than mine no - is mine any more valid than yours no - simple really?

Quote ="tvoc"I linked to the thread that was running last season. See for yourself from this post forward viewtopic.php?f=17&t=446309&start=61. You set the criteria: Time did tell (1 change in Round 1 of the NRL season), again and again and again, that Melbourne had sent and played the best squad that was available to them despite your earlier claim that: It was proven (by your own terms) that Melbourne had sent the very best squad that they had available (notwithstanding several injuries) to the WCC game V Leeds in 2010. Unfortunately you failed to contribute further back then but here's your chance now.'" My response is simple the only people who know how seriously Melbourne took this game are the coaches and players of the Storm. Anything else is opinion - is yours any more valid than mine no - is mine any more valid than yours no - simple really?

Matt King, although he was poor for at least his first season

=#FF0000You set a criteria from which to be able to make a reasonable assessment. I didn't contest =#FF0000your stated yardstick as it seemed reasonable also to me as a fair indication of Melbourne's intent.

When that criteria failed to back your view you disappeared from the thread despite it being brought back to the top of the front page week after week with each new Melbourne team selection in the NRL Regular Rounds. Those selections clearly indicating that Melbourne had brought their best squad available only missing those individuals who were injured at the time and would remain unavailable in the opening rounds back in the NRL.

More than a year on and you appear only to want to distance yourself from your original benchmark and instead introduce a new hypothesis, that a collection of Australian and New Zealander sportsmen with a highly competitive coach could be somewhat indifferent to putting one over the English with a World title at stake.

So earlier when you questioned (although it appeared more like a statement or at least rhetorical in nature):



you're still not prepared to do so in this instance?