I think he was being sarcastic, just a thought like........

Isnt most successful a quantitative rather than qualitative statement?

I'm sure you can argue about that on your own board....

Not necessarily no.

Over the course of their respective careers give me Backo any day. He did have a career before and after Leeds you know.

Surely success would be measured by your success which is fairly easily to measure. Best would be a clearly qualitative statement, but successful is clearly a quantitative one. It is fact that Ali has been the most successful import of the SL era.

As for the comparison with Backo, I'd take Ali every day of the week.

So you are saying a player cannot be a success in a team unable to challenge for honours.

Has Rangi Chase been a success this year with his form?

It is a simple man that judges success or failure against the number of trophies in a cabinet in my opinion.

in relation to Backo and Ali, a world class Prop, one of the best of his generation, which was an excellent generation of Australian Props or Ali Lautitia, who had maybe 4 top seasons. No brainier for me, but each to their own.

Anyway back on topic.

Lauaki will provide us with much needed wide threat much in the same way Ali used to do for you......several seasons ago.

Yeah I know - Backo was a great player in his own right, but I'd have a fit 25 year old Lauitiiti over any version of Backo. Lauitiiti has done things in games Backo could only dream of, but then again they are/were totally different players but I know which one I'd have in my team and which one I'd pay to watch and that would be Lauitiiti. If you look at the stats. Lauitiiti has more honours, more rep caps, and played a lot more matches over his career.

You can dream, I suppose.

Can someone lock this.... Just Whinos here now talking about history...

Why are Whinos fans obsessed with comparing Bailey to everyone and shouting about this sad TMFMISLABCXYZ thing. Nobody gives a flying fuc k.

Classic Bailey...

Can we get it back to how our super duper new signing isn't going to turn out a mixture between Feka and Karl Pryce. Ta.

Only losers judge success by other criteria than what you actually achieve. Ali is the most successful import of the SL era. He has experienced more success than any other player. Its a fairly obvious point. Maybe you want to judge success by some other criteria than winning, but for me game losers, are still losers.
Firstly, Ali had many successful seasons, A Dally M second rower of the year winner, and played in an NRL GF, to say he only had 4 good years is just idiotic. This is a player who has played at the top level for 14 years, played in CC finals, a tri-nations finals, 6 SL grand finals and an NRL grand final.

Secondly, Lauaki as a player is very different from Ali, Lauaki doesnt have the footwork, ball handling, offloading skills, nor the ability to do something amazing like Ali does. Lauaki is bigger, plays a much more direct game, and is probably more dynamic, but he isnt and cant play the same game Ali does. Ali will likely be on a much higher wage at Wakefield than Lauaki at Wigan, if he isnt then your coaches have made a disastrous choice. As I said Lauaki is more like Hock than Ali or Solomona, but not at the same level as either of them.

All that and he still looks a plodder whenever I see him play.

Maybe you rate Bibbey too

I was talking about winning trophies. In SL he is number 1

SL, the start of RL!

Leeds fans. The new Saints fans.

So... Garry Schofield was a loser and Ricky Bibey a winner.

What's the relevance of "success" by your definition to anything? If it's just about who has honours on the board, it's just a pub trivia question.

Actually, Lauaki is a very good ball handler,has good footwork and has a decent offload.It's just that we never got to see it very often at Hull because Agar used him as a battering ram up the middle rather than play him in his best position as a wide running second-rower.

You've got to love some people's absolute insistence that everything pre 1996 (or 2004) doesn't count in Rugby League.

[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_league/15671931.stmBet the Hull fans wished he stayed now after their new 2nd row signing.[/url

Fantastic.

Yes. Surely it cant be controversial to say that despite being a very good rugby league player, Garry Schofield wasn’t particularly successful.

The relevance of my definition of success (im yet to see anyone else actually put one forward as of yet, just the same, weird Wigan obsession with Ricky Bibey) is that it was an explanation of why the use of that word by Sgt Wilko was correct. It is fact that Ali Lauitiiti has been the most successful overseas player in the SL era.

Lauaki’s ball handling isn’t, and hasn’t, been anywhere near the level of Ali’s. I remember him bombing a try by failing to make a very very simple pass to give the player outside him a simple run at the line. His actual passing ability is relatively poor. He does have a decent (not great) offload but his footwork is nothing to write home about.

There's no obsession with Ricky Bibey.

He's just an example of how pointless it is to praise a player for being "succcessful" on the basis of trophies won. As I said, your definition of success reduces the the "fact" to one of pub quiz trivia level. The fact that one the greatest players in the modern era of RL, Leeds own Garry Schofield was massively "unsuccessful" on your definition, despite playing international RL and being considered one of the best players in British RL year after year shows how little value there is in your definition.

Other definitions of successful overseas player might for example take into account value for money - in which case George Carmont would fit the bill, he has been a huge success for Wigan.

Other definitions would look at the personal achievements and standard of play shown by the player in question - Garry was successful in terms of achieving international honours and receiving the plaudits of the RL press, players and fans, playing at the top of the sport in this country for many years.. He obviously wasn't a failure as a player (his punditry is a different matter

), although he played in a team which clearly wasn't successful.

From a Wigan perspective Edwards is the most successful player the club (and indeed the British game) has seen but Wigan fans don't particularly go on about it in the context of discussions about the relative merits of Wigan players because it just doesn't mean much. He may have won more medals than Hanley or Boston, but....

Not sure what you are trying to prove, but it's all a non-point in reality.