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.

In fairness, and without meaning to nit-pick too much, I don't think those shortlisting for the award are asked to nominate only players they perceive to be Greats of the Game. I am aware that I am sounding a bit negative here, and to an extent it's because I'm playing devil's advocate a bit, but I am wary of using responses to one question to answer a different question.

He clearly stated it'd take more than a bunch of "leeds fans" for him to be considered a great.
I have proved that he is clearly "highly rated" and considered a great player with the above award/nomination.
Surely if he's considerd a great player then he's on his way to being considered a great of the game by more than just his "home" crowd!

rhinoms response was perfectly valid. It demonstrated that recognition for Sinfield's talent comes from a world wide audience and not just Leeds fans.

Thus he rebutted the point that person on my ignore list was trying to make.

Fair enough. Just wanted to clarify the point, I don't really believe it's only Leeds fans who rate him. In fact he seems to attract enough vitriol from fans of other clubs to suggest he's doing something right.

Can you explain how this logic would apply to Schofield? He attracts approbrium from fans of other clubs, but not nearly as much as from those of Leeds and Hull

Quality wordcraft sir.

No I can't. He defies all logic.

Schofield was a Leeds great but always found himself in a team of individuals.

RL is a team sport and as such using team results (be it Championships or Ashes success) proves something but falls a way short of the whole story. That goes for all players in all eras.

I agree entirely but would add that Schofield himself played a large part in ensuring that the Leeds team remained a team of individuals.

Only if you consider all Golden boot nominees/best in their position as 'greats of the game'. This simply isn't the case as I've stated previously. Had he been nominated for the Hall Of Fame, then this would indeed be a valid response.

Just for the record recent Golden Boot nominees/Best in their position include Manu Vatavei and Roy Asotasi. No-one considers their nominations as reasons to be considered 'greats of the game' and rightly so.

Never made it past your 5th birthday then Gareth?