You're not very good at thinking laterally are you?

I was not using his nomination for the Golden boot as the sole basis for considering him a great. just another achievement on a long list of achievements.

I also never claimed he was going to win the award, I simply offered his nomination as further evidence of his greatness. Of course the winner can claim greatness because they have been voted the worlds' best player. However, does that exclude anyone who doesn't win it?

Hanley was undoubtedly a great of the game. El Diablo can't admit that though because Hanley achieved even less success in internationals than Sinfield has.

Well actually, I seem to be the only one answering questions for some reason!

Do you think he passes the 'Wally Lewis' test I posted earlier? Do you think he would need to be universally accepted as an RL great, rather than just by Leeds fans, to become one? Do you think his game and a half of quality at International level is sufficient to be regarded as a great? Do you think the fact that he, himself, considered his International career over after never having made an impact on the Interational stage and a disasterous WC counts against him or is it superceded by a good game and a half? In fact, feel free to answer any of the points I've made (I mean actually answer them as opposed to posting a further question) as I'm genuinely interested to know how someone who appears to make reasoned posts is happy to ignore all these things. Moreover, would you be prepared to ignore them if the player in question was from, say, Saints?

As for the Golden boot/international 13 post, there was no lateral thinking involved. You asked a specific question to which I posted a specific answer. In fact I even addressed the 'cumulative' aspect of all the individual achievements if you care to read my post. Please feel free to tell me where 'lateral thinkng' comes into it. I'm intrigued. Just in case you're confused:

Lateral thinking: •Attempting to solve a problem by using non-traditional methods in order to create and identify new concepts and ideas.

How are you quantifying this? This is exactly what I'm referring to in our other posts. What exactly has Sinfield achieved at International level. More so, what has he achieved that Hanley did not? This is more revisionist history based on Sinfield playing a starring role in 1 win against NZ (interestingly something even the much derided on this board Sean O'Loughlin has done!) and playing well in 1 half in a loss to the Aussies! Not exactly an 'achievement' in International terms and certainly not sufficient (IMO obvioulsy) to put him in the bracket of 'World greats'.

He has played in a series win for his country. I don't think Henley ever did, though I stand to be corrected. Thus I don't think results achieved at international level are an accurate barometer for British players, given the antipodean era of dominance.

IU do not intend to discuss the issue any further with you because you have a clear agenda. I do not accept your proposition that Sinfield has only played well in the last "game and a half" and therefore there's no further basis for discussion.

If his international career has been such a failure to this point (it hasn't) ask yourself why every international coach since 2000 has continually selected him?

You should read JJB's interview with him in this months RLWorld magazine which explains that for the first time at international level he's been asked to run the show like he does at Leeds with the same results. Previously, he was not given this role because of the presence of Farrell and Sculthorpe etc. Now they're gone he can be the pivot (from 6, 13 or 9) and we're seeing the results.

I think that the 1 and a half games stuff is garbage. Sinfield has had plenty of decent games for England/GB, although he may not have been MOM in any of them.

he has been a part of the international scene consistently for 9 years.

I don't think he's a great of the game yet. Internationally I think he doesn't have the profile, but at club level he's done it all, including playing in 3 WCC games.

I'm sure most of the Aussie players will have an opinion on him, even if all the fans don't

I stand to be corrected too, but I'm sure I remember Hanley playing in at least one side that one a series against NZ. We need an international equivalent of tvoc. When Hanley was at his very best I was about 10, so my memory is a little uncertain. I'm still not sure Sinfield has had the same impact at international level as Hanley. He hasn't done much wrong, but I don't remember him being outstanding prior to this series. I just think to be a great of the game your international resume needs more substance than that.

Maybe you're right and it is unreasonable to expect trophies at international level for Eng/GB players, but I still think Sinfield needs to carry on what he's started this year for a bit longer to earn that tag.

I'm not trying to sell him short, I'm at least as big a Sinfield fan as anyone (bar those who luv im coz he iz well fit innit). If I had my way he'd have been knighted by now, and is probably edging his way ahead of the competition as my favourite ever Leeds player, I just think he has more to prove at international level yet. Plenty of time for him to do that.

That's true, and it is probably what has prevented him realising his potential at Test level thus far. If he stays in that role he may very well earn himself a claim on greatness. I hope to see him lead England in the same way he's lead Leeds over the last few years.

We won a series against NZ in 1989 but IIRC hanley was injured. We may have won a series in NZ in 1991 but again, IIRC he was injured. Then we won the series in 1993 but I don't think he played, Schoey was captain.

I probably do stand corrected then don't I?

I wouldn't concede quite so easily. That was all from my hazy memory.

Completely correct. But Hanley did actually win the Golden Boot didn't he? And would it be too bold to suggest that had Hanley not been injured for the series vs NZ in 89 and 91 that he would undoubtedly have been on the winning side?

<Loiner4Life mode on> BTW Schofield played in series winning GB sides on three occasions. Surely that makes him three times the player Sinfield was<Loiner4Life mode off>

If we're talking about the present time, he may actually be 3 times the size of Kevin Sinfield if that counts?

Not too bold to suggest at all. But it doesn't alter the fact that success at international level is not the sole barometer to measure greatness and, perhaps, is one of the least important barometers when you consider just how great Hanley was and that he won nothing internationally.

I think it was 2. I don't think he played in the 1989 series did he?

If his international career was his only body of work then Schofield would be one of the greatest. But you cannot ignore his body of work at club level which diminishes his claims somewhat.

The other thing that Hanley did (and Schofield) was to play in the NRL (or the equivalent then) and be a success. I know it was part time contracts in the off season but he did test himself and IIRC get rave reviews, on top of all his other accollades.

That there is even an attempt to compare Sinfield with Hanley shows how high Sinfield is riding at the moment.

Hanley was afterall the greatest British player of his generation and highly regarded on both sides of the globe.

very unfair when they had an opportunity to play as guests that today's players don't have.

Even Hanley and Schofield didn't have the fortitude to go test themselves over there full time like Burgess, Ellis, Mathers, Morley, Reilly etc etc

I was not aware anyone was.

Quite. Which illustrates that results in an international career are not paramount to acheiveing status as a "great".

But they didn't need to since the season's didn't overlap.
Reilly's case (& let's not forget Stevo, Dave Bolton & others) is different because at that time he could earn more over there than over here.
So not really a fair comparison.
To suggest that either lacked to bottle is disingenuous & is a disservice to both Hanley & Schofield, both of whom acquitted themselves admirably when they played over there unlike (IMO) Sean Edwards.

I was the one who was demonstrating it wasn't a fair example.

It was finglas who brought it up.

I would agree that it isn't the sole arbiter of greatness, but I would suggest that it most certainly an important factor. I still maintain that the most important factor is universal acceptance. You can't be a world great if the only people who think this are a bunch of Leeds (or any other club's) fans. Don't you agree that any player would need to be regarded by the majority of fans worldwide as a great to be considered as one? Otherwise what is your criterea given there are no absolutes?

Given that he's been short-listed for the Golden boot and voted the best 13 in the world for this year i'd say it's more than just a bunch of Leeds fans that consider him a great!

I never said it was fair, I just poined out that they had succeeded in the Australian league along with players like Kevinn Ward. They got the respect of their Australian counterparts, which I would expect Sinfield also has. I'm sure that respect would be of greater relevance to them than our opinions on a message board.

Indeed.