Go away.

sinfield for me but i'm sick of the numerous hospital passes he gives every week

Hanley was the better RL player, Sinfield has accomplished more for Leeds. Tough call, but Sinfield gets my vote.

These things are never going to be straightforward but if greater accomplishment is the top criteria the final selection is going to have a pretty familiar look to it.

Sinfield could make my mythical bench (even though he's started there only 27 times out of 394 Appearances for the club) as he's started: 222 at loose, 15 in the 2nd row, 7 at hooker and 123 in the halves.

Unknowns aren't going to make the "greatest" team in reality.

Is that a euphemism?

Hanley was a phenomenal player, an amazing athlete and ahead of his time. He was a teetotaller and a gym rat in the days when he competed against part time players who trained twice weekly and consumed a fair amount of shandy. Sinfield has played in a very different era against a very different specimen of opposition.

I watched the Invincibles DVD at the weekend (highlights of Wigan's 8 successive CC wins) and the things Hanley did in those Wigan teams was jaw dropping. However, lets forget everything Hanley achieved at Wigan and GB. The poll is asking about Leeds best ever 13.

Hanley at Leeds was a shadow of the Hanley at Wigan version and some years past his best but he was still head and shoulders above everyone else in the team, regularly topping the try scoring charts and the tackle count. However, I don't recall him winning a Lance Todd in Blue and Amber. I don't recall him winning a Harry Sunderland in Blue and Amber. I don't recall him winning man of the match in a world Club Challenge.

SInfield's Leeds achievement's simply drip off the tongue and it's not just that he was part of Leeds greatest ever teams (which he was). He led those teams. Not only did he lead those teams but he delivered inspired performances on the biggest of stages for Leeds. Did Hanley? Reel off your Hanley highlights from the four finals Leeds reached under his captaincy. Go on, think about it. The first thing that comes to my mind is that with Leeds 2 points down in the 1994 Challenge Cup Final, having staged a remarkable fightback, we were pressing the Wigan line to take the lead when Hanley lost the ball and they scored on next set. I'm honestly desperately struggling to think of any other moment from any of those big games.

Hanley is a legend of the game and one of the greatest players I have ever seen play. However, the discussion is about Leeds greatest ever 13 and when it comes to THAT discussion then Hanley simply isn't in the same galaxy as Sinfield. That there has been a single other vote for any other player emphasises to me that Leeds fans these days do not understand the greatness we have been watching these last seven years in context of Leeds RLs history.

In my mind, great player as he was, Hanley was perhaps the ultimate symbol of an era of under-achieving, inefficient extravagance, where we produced teams full of star names in flash zig-zaggy kits and achieved very little. Probably not really his fault, but there it is.

Sinfield is, in my mind, the ultimate symbol of an era where we brought unprecedented levels of young talent through our academy and enjoyed the most sustained spell of success the club has seen. He was more than just part of those successes, he was the leader, talisman and, overall, our best player over those 6 years.

That, together with him having amassed over 1000 points, lifted almost all the trophies we've won in my lifetime and won the Lance Todd and Harry Sunderland along the way, is a good reason to vote for him.

*party election broadcast for the Sir Kevin Sinfield part ends*

Hanley and Sinfield are similar in their approach to the game and that is the greatest compliment anyone could pay to Sinfield.

Calling Hanley dedicated and single-minded is to do a disservice to the term. Where Hanley comes out on top is that he had the awe factor. The capacity to do things other players could only dream of and that stayed with him until he retired from playing. To contribute 41 tries from loose forward in his final Leeds season was an immense achievement and I made sure I was on hand to see them all. Nothing bar habit would persuade me to go see a Sinfield performance as dedicated and professional as he is.

How are we to define 'Greatest' ?

I don't necessarily disagree though I do wonder if that aw factor would be as pronounced if we were in an era where all the players were athletically gifted.

I have no wish to denegrate a legend like Hanley but I still challenge you to articulate how that awe factor translated itself into performance in big games, for Leeds. There's plenty of it on the Invincibles DVD of him in Cherry and White

It's a team game and all players will benefit when the collective performs well together. Neither Hanley or Sinfield (or any other player) ever won a game all on their own.

Running Wigan fairly close on occasions was as good as it got for Leeds when Hanley was around the club but I wouldn't downgrade his personal input because there was a better team in the competition.

As eluded to earlier there was IMO a cancer within the club which Hanley had to fight to overcome. Ironically the cancer was caused by Hanley's arrival.

I agree with Tvoc about players you would pay to see, Dave Heron was a guy I would (and did) pay to see week in week out, as was Hanley. Sinfield may not himself be the most individually "exciting" player to wear the 13 shirt for Leeds but he's calmly, professionaly and skillfully directed the [iteam[/i to the most exciting moments I've seen from a Leeds team. He also has plenty of moments himself and we may forget some of his almost unblievable pressure goal kicks (the last second kick from the right hand touchline to take the 2003 CC semi to extra time was surely one of the great kicks of all time in one of the greatest matches of all time).

It's a great debate, to have to choose between Hanley and Sinfield is not bad really is it?

I'm only messing. Neither were fit to lace Dave Heron's boots.

If only he'd been introduced to Tetley Tea rather than Tetley Bitter.

I take it then you're struggling to think of a Hanley highlight from any of those finals?

Interestingly, having watched the comeback from the 1994 final on the Invincibles DVD the "cancer" you refer to features quite prominently in those highlights, unlike Hanley.

Recalling a Hanley 'highlight' isn't required to know he will have been one of the key opposition targets to control on the day. Indeed in one of the Wembley finals on your list he was very effectively targeted.

The art of being a great player is in preparation, for switching on for every second of the full 80 minutes and for doing all the little things well. Hanley's focus and attention to detail was legendary.

While others may have provided the inspiration you could always rely on Hanley to provide the perspiration. Constantly aware, constantly thinking, constantly covering, constantly motivating and leading.

His appearance as St Helens' coach on the BBC 'Sportsman Of The Year' was testament to that focused approach. I doubt there was another sportsman/coach in the world that would have fielded those questions from Ryder the way he did.

Batten, Hanley & Sinfield are all outstanding players and great 13's for Leeds. But I voted for Sinfield.

Hanley was certainly one of the very best individual players but IMO his achievements came not because he was a better footballer but because he had much superior physique and fitness than his peers. His try scoring feats were also bacause of his great backing up and he had retained the speed of this days as a threequarter. Much of this backing up was from an off side position out of the ref's vision. But also I have to say he did play for himself rather in the Geoffrey Boycott style. This point is highlighted in a video clip that is often shown on TV. It shows Hanley crabbing across the field batting off Aussies and across the front of several other players to score for GB. Yet it was bad rugby. Had he run straight and drawn the defence he could have passed to one of 2 or 3 unmarked players a try would have been scored. I doubt that Hanley would have been as effective in the SL era because of equally fit players and much better defences. Good though he was his best days were in the colours of Wigan rather than Leeds

Ray Batten was a wizard with the ball which he had full control of with one hand. A team player who created so many scores for others.

However Sinfield is the complete rugby footballer who plays with a head up awareness in the John Holmes style to create so many opportunities for other players. He is at home in several key positions, has a sound defence and is a record goalkicker who is reliable and mentally tough. He is an inspirational captain and a model professional and no one has played a more important role in achieving consistent success for Leeds. So IMO he is the best 13 to play for Leeds that I have seen.

After my first read of this I thought you were making a case to include Buderus at 9...

As long as he was onside at the play the ball he was entitled to move forward in anticipation of a break upfield. He put himself there (as all great support players did and still do) by anticipating where the break was coming and by putting the effort (not always rerwarded effort) in just as Schofield, Edwards, Offiah, McGuire and Burrow have. The offside support player is nothing more than an urban myth IMO.



Were those Aussies all playing for Halifax at the time? Wasn't he also playing for the team when scoring those type of tries.



Where he spent his best days shouldn't be allowed to detract from his Leeds career. Hanley never gave less than 100% in every game he played whether that was at Bradford, a virtually untouchable Wigan or a generally under-achieving Leeds. Internationally he was respected worldwide and was a prize asset in the ARL and ruthlessly/accidentally taken out by Terry Lamb in a GF such was his importance to the then Balmain side having set up the win in the preliminary final. Relating back to his time at Leeds even as he finished with the club he was still regarded as a scalp in the ARL/SL war down-under.

__________

Earlier G1 was asking for a memorably Hanley contribution in a Final. While not in a Final his MOTM contribution to the semi-final win at Central Park V St Helens taking Leeds back to Wembley for the first time in 16 seasons was IMO just as significant to Leeds as any final would have been. As a long suffering fan (who could still remember when Leeds used to win CC Semi-Finals) that was another huge monkey.

It was. Many were convinced we'd beat wigan after that win. Wrongly of course but it was great to feel that way after so long in the wilderness.

I refer to the habit the Hanley had of running infront of the ball carrier rather than supporting him but always on the blind side of the ref. No myth about it.

. No they were playing for the kangaroos at the time. And had he put the team first he would have passed the ball. As it was his first intent was to score himself at the risk of not scoring for the team.

.

It doesn't detract from his Leeds career. But had he been at his best he might, just might, have been good enough to get my vote. As I said a great individual player, but not the best Leeds 13. Sinfield wins that by some margin and IMO Ray Batten was 2nd best 13 for Leeds that I have seen.

I am starting to think this greatest leeds team thing is not doing justice to many past great player's who wont get selected.I think the club should have thought about having a hall/wall of fame concept like they have in many ball clubs in the USA and have plaques with the tributes to the players placed on the walls of the room and make it an ongoing thing.

Where was he at the play the ball? Onside or offside?

He's entirely at liberty to run anywhere he likes as long as he was onside at the play the ball and as long as he doesn't interfere with the opposition's defensive line.



I don't recall that try - you obviously do - can you give any further pointers to when this occurred?

Only Hanley knew his intent but I suspect scoring the try was his number one priority and one he achieved by your recollection of it. Why portray a try scored against the world's best team as a negative? If you have an example of a try he butchered by not passing perhaps you should be using that instead of a try scored at what should be the pinnacle of the sport.



I thought the general idea was to recognise great individual players and place them in a mythical team selection? A team that could never take the field together and therefore impossible to know if they would have gelled together if they had.

We all have and are entitled to express our own opinions. The test I'm applying is to individual input rather than collective output.

Sinfield has many admirable qualities but I'd still classify him as a great all-rounder rather than a star in the context of this poll.

You're making a habit of jumping to conclusions based upon reading extracts from rather than full statements.

I agree with Juan on this one. I saw many times Hanley infront of the PTB (offside) at the start of a play - often he would drift back very slowly after a support run where he didn't receive the ball. No Ian Smith on the video ref button back in those days. Not saying it was a bad thing, and it meant he was always in support of attacking breaks - he either ran off the shoulder or was already lurking ahead of play.