Guscott would not and could not have made the transition, he had no upper body strength. Massive credit to Davies at that time, but he took a season to really get strong enough to cope, he always had my admiration for what he achieved. Speed is one thing, but not enough on its own in league. Guscott just came across as an arrogant git... And i for one would be amazed if he was offered the monies mentioned to cross codes.

Guscott would definitely have made it in RL if he'd made the switch IMO. Sure he may have needed to bulk up but look at Davies. He did it no problem. Guscott had plenty of flair and was tougher than the majority of England backs at the time such as Carling and Underwood.
He didn't play in the cross codes games because he saw them both as pointless. In the end they proved nothing other than that each club was very good at their own code of rugby.
He may come over as arrogant and I think that's a fair assessment but I think some people are going way OTT.

Guscott ran good lines that was it. No league clubs were falling over themselves to sign him. He was a good union player ran great lines but he would have been destroyed in most other aspects, something off the record he acknowledges. I am not sure who you are comparing with him who did go on to become very good league player I assume the likes of Davis, Bateman, Gibbs etc all who were far more naturally suited to league. Phil Deglanville was the only player worth a look at from that Bath team, vastly underrated player and could have in my opinion been a cracking defensive centre.

Regards the backs there is a vast difference in the physical requirements required in modern day league and union, so to compare the 2 is pretty difficult although from my experiences generally the League lads have come out on top in most core physical disciplines.

I would not take every Guiness Premiership team over Wigan at 7's but i would not expect Wigan to win a 7's these days playing under Union rules, but having said that if the boot was on the other foot I would take every SL side and a good few NL1 sides over any Union side in league 7's.

While the "codes could not be closer" this is a very naive statement, clearly they are working together but if you do not think there is an anti League agenda with the media men and major established figures within the game then you are somewhat deluded.

I would agree that Union is improving as a product and it needs to it is still not a great spectacle domestically, and i also agree we as a Sport are going backwards but I think we are starting to slow down in this respect and 2010 is likely to be a watershed year that will see improvement across the board not just 1 or 2 clubs.

I know that Bradford made a couple of concrete offers to sign him, one around 88 and another in 92/93. He turned down both.

I disagree with your opinion that he waas only good at running good lines. He was also quick, had a good change of pace, could step off either foot and had a decent kicking game. I always thought his attitude would suit him in League too as you need a bit of arrogance and cockiness to succeed.

If you read John Bentley's autobiography he rates Guscott in contrast with De Glanville who he doesn't reckon much to at all.

I have been pretty close to the Bath camp in my time and have experience of both Deglanville and Guscott, if you asked any of the Bath team who they would want on the field it was Deglanville he had a Dean Bell type aura about him, he would do things that other player would not especially back, he was also ridiculously strong.

Regards the Bradford offers, according to the man himself both were nothing more than a publicity stunt and he never received a serious offer from the club.

Guscott was pretty fast but his acceleration was not the best, Bateman and Davis had raw acceleration, Guscott had pretty bgood feet for a Union player but nothing special for a League player at the time. He also lacked real strength which would have been a major issue in League, his engine was also not the best and i dread to think what effect having to do 10-15 + tackles would have on his game and his pace.

His kicking game was reasonable nothing fantastic, but credit to him he had the ability to come up with a match winning play, again though i would question his ability to do this without a hiding place for 75 minutes of a game that he was often afforded in Union.

Bradford did make a solid and pretty good bid for Mike Tindall in the early 2000's.

Rubbish!

I still reckon that a proper weight training regime would've got Guscott powerful and fit enough for League.

I don't doubt that most Bath players preferred playing with De Glanville. He was a much better team man and not self centred and arrogant like Guscott could be. I guess they knew they could rely on him.

As for Tindall he had the physique but I doibt he had the skills to make it in League. We were also have meant to have made an offer for Neil Jenkins too around that time. Gawd knows why!

I am good mates with Mike played with him for many years, played with a few lads who also went on to have good league careers and he skills are not lacking in comparison, his size and mentality are his main assets though, and he always modelled himself on Danny Peacock as a player. Saints and Leeds have also made offers in the past.

I have no idea why any club would want Jenkins.

"Irony: Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs"

The irony was not in what you said but the incongruity between your intended meaning and what it actually said.

Now do you get it, genius?

As for the guiness premiership; the current top scorer is a player who was seen as little more than someone with potential in League. Potential that was never realised. You figure it out for yourself Einstein.

It would murder all of todays teams. That backline was like the Harlem Globetrotters.

LOL

Why on earth would RU want to "destroy" RL?

The RFL are doing a good enough job in that department on their own.


Maybe 25 years ago when RU was "Amateur" and RL poached their best players then you may have had a point.

Nowdays the CC ensures RL is a feeder sport for RU. Why on earth would they want to stop that?

The battle with RU was lost years ago. They have true international competition and a European competition going back 15 yrs now. On European weekends Sky show as many as 10 live games (incl. red button options) from Thursday to Sunday. We are of no consequence whatsoever.

Erm. Yeah great argument there.

To be fair Carling especially was a tough lad, did much of the tackling for Guscott and did the graft to give him the opportunity to come up with those match winning plays.

Next you'll be telling me that Jonathan Webb and Simon Hodgkinson were animals

the only union centre ive seen play who i am 100% sure would have made it in league was Charles Kent.

built like the proverbial brick outhouse, and tackled like a tank.

Absolutely right. Also if you thought Gusscott was arrogant you should have met Will. Met him after a game where he played for England/4 nations side against the rest of Europe. He went of holding his shoulder after 15 mins only to be found in the car park bars of twickers with both arms draped around to young blonde ladies, and it wasn't to support his bad arm. My mate went over for a chat and an autograph to which he and many more were waved away with a 'I'm to busy to spend time doing this' as he headed for the guiness tent.

Did have the joy a few years later watching him trying to learn to take penalty kicks down at the Stoop, god he was awful, I think I would have got nearer. i think he missed 20 out of 20 and nearly all were miles away.

Tough lad for all that, just needed to get his ego in check and he could really have been something.

Quite ironic in a way. Carling was at the forefront of the push to full time professionalism yet ultimately was the embodiment of the amatuer era.

In terms of playing style/ability I agree he was much more likely to succeed at RL than Guscott.

would have been useful if you would have added the entire post

That was your entire post Einstein.

All you did was say my argument was rubbish without giving any reasons why.

You've not really got the hang of this debating malarky have you?

I qoted your post highlighted the point in bold I was referring to and then posted.......but maybe you couldnt see that bit eh

I did, you quoted me and said what I had put was "rubbish".

And that's it.

No reasons why you thought it. Nothing.

With debating skills like that you should've been at Copenhagen last week.

i said a certain part of your quote was, and it wasnt a debate it was a comment, so no need to elaborate in it. If you wanted you could have asked me why and then got into a debate......but again you just commented on my comment, no questions.

Obviously I was expecting too much of you. Never mind.

yes you expected a debate but didnt get one....unlucky