So Peacock hasn't had any bad games this year?

So what you're saying is that a half back could never be the player of the year?
And that his superior kicking game hasn't laid any platforms?
And that him being the captain and organiser isn't leading the team?

And that a side that no one had tipped to finish top and are tipping to win the GF despite being top aren't underdogs?
And that some clubs have well established youth systems that churn out SL players and some don't?

I haven't argued that Hudds have had players out or that Leeds haven't. But I don't think that's enough to justify picking Peacock as MOS. Many don't even think Peacock should even be picked for England if he came out of retirement.

Your arguments come across as someone who has ignored huge parts of the game.

did you read my post properly?

Rangi Chase is a prop?

Superior kicking game? Relative to who? Who creates the time by putting the defensive line on the back foot?

Who was tipped to finish top & win the GF?

You don't have to have argued about injury hit sides to have it pointed out to you.

Peacock has led a battered, injury ravaged squad through 27 rounds to third place. He has done that by leading from the front on the field & inspiring his players to get result they shouldn't have.

Brough does not lead the line, he is a second phase style half back. You never see him take the line on to try & break tackles. Quality player, but nowhere near the leader & genuine MOS that Peacock is.

Perhaps Peacock could be awarded the Golden Boot as a sweetener for being overlooked for Man of Steel whilst at Leeds?

Ahhh, so you've never watched Brough play. Makes sense now.

Seen him play several times this season. at game & on Sky. Go & count the number of times he actually takes the line on as opposed to kicks or passing.

Can't understand people saying Peacock, aren't Leeds players still excluded?

(he has had an astounding season - arguably his best at leeds despite his age. Would have thought brough will win thought as of late the award seems to go to more eyecatching players - not that i'm saying he wouldn't be a worthy winner)

Peacock and Brough are clearly the 2 front runners for the award this year. Brough has been instrumental to Hudds this year - take him out of their team, and they'd struggle. Peacock has been immense all year and carried the Leeds pack - in my eyes, that's more deserving of the man of steel title.

However, my opinion means nothing, it's up to the players - and this is where I think Peacock probably has the upper hand on Brough. Danny Brough has not got many friends in the game and isn't respected by his peers like Peacock is. Brough's attitude towards teammates at previous clubs (he was always a bit of a bad egg - although he appears to have somewhat turned this around recently), and his general perceived arrogance could well work against him. JP however is highly respected within the game, and players appreciate his work ethic/toughness on the pitch - plus he's a complete gent off the pitch too.

I don't want this post to sound like and anti-Brough post, just commenting on my observations over the years.

Don't think you will find any arguments if peacock gets it.

Peacock nailed on now

Don't think you will find any arguments if Brough gets it

Brough nailed on now

I'd go for Peacock - the guy is a beast and would still walk into the England front row imo

But you seem to have overlooked my point.
You're saying that no half back should ever be MOS. I think the fact that you're using Rangi as a counter argument shows that you accept that they could. So why not Brough?


Relative to everyone. Name a better kicker in the competition.
Brough has got plenty of kicks away under pressure into decent space when the forwards haven't quite done the job.


Wigan/Wire. Leeds obviously for GF.


I don't see why it's relevant though? Just because a team has had players out doesn't mean that player has automatically played better than he would have if they were all fit. They just stand out more than they did.
Says more about the observer than the participant.


As ridiculous as that quote is, it's not his job to anyway. He's supposed to organise and put other players through the line. Despite this, he has broken the line MANY times this season. He's made more clean breaks than Peacock has. In fact, backs make more clean breaks than forwards do anyway.

Peacock is a work horse. Makes loads of metres (although isn't even in the top 50 for average gain) and tackles like a trojan. He sets a platform. Brough wins games.

Not impressed that the MoS choice is no longer a straight vote from the players, takes a bit of the gloss off for me not having it decided exclusively by your peers.

Brought, Higham or Peacock. Kirmond as an outside shout.

Tomkins has apparently been shortlisted so he will win it.

Shortlist is apparently

Brough, Peacock, Tomkins, Ferres and Kirmond.

It will be Brough or Peacock, definitely.

When do we find out?

You seem to have imagined where I said no half back should be MoS. Brough shouldn't be MoS this season or any other that he's not worthy of the award.

A better kicker? Name me which type of kick you want comparing to. Goals? Sinfield. Cross field to winger, Sinfield. 40/20's what do stats say. Michael Dobson is up there when fit.

So what you're saying is that a fully fit first choice side is no harder to lead than a team full of young, inexperienced players? Right.

Any stats on line breaks for Brough? Look at how someone like Rob Burrow takes on the line compared to him. Backs make more clean breaks than forwards? Perhaps that's because forwards like Peacock suck in 4 defenders at the tackle?

Brough only shines because he has had a fully fit team of forwards building that platform for him. He doesn't win games.

Danny Brough has had a good season thanks to the work of others. Not because he's created a spark or provided the genius.

Week before the GF usually isn't it?

When Sam's counted the votes and thrown all the non-Sam slips away.

He's won it once when he probably should have won it three years on the trot.

Hardly a one man bias.