Everyone has an opinion and if you believed most of them on RL forums or in the RL press, you'd end up believing that England have the best pack in the world, the best winger in the world, the golden boot best player in the world and a full back who is better than Australia's finest! How can England not be a shoe-in for the RLWC?

OTOH, I reckon there's more chance of another RFL inquiry being set up after the event, just like there was after the 2008 World Cup, and the one before that!

It's not like you to make a grammatical error.

You are saying that star players don't increase crowds - I also like to see some robust that supports that. Why is it that the top sides in any sport command the biggest crowds of the home clubs they visit? People want to see star players

There's a difference between a top team and top players. Top teams are top teams because they have top players, so there will be a link. I'm just suggesting that it's not quite as direct as big crowds turning up to see specific individuals. Wigan are doubtless a bigger draw than most. But will that be measurably less true if Sam Tomkins leaves?

It makes you wonder why Tiger Woods can command such massive appearance money?

golf isn't a team sport. tompkins may be a big player but he's just part of a team

There's also a difference between top players and star players.

So are you saying Lionel Messi was playing in Leeds no one would turn up to watch him they would only turn up to watch Barcelona?

No argument from me. It's their effect on attendances that we're debating isn't it?

And neither of can prove one way or the other so this is just intellectual my dad is bigger than your dad

Correct.

That's the difference between top players and star players right there.

Leeds Rhinos have lots of top players in SL but they are only top SL players by SL playing standards. None of them are star players who possess any x-factor... none of them are box office by any stretch of anyone's imagination.

Tomkins OTOH is the only player in SL who I consider a star player, who possesses an x-factor and who qualifies as box office quality. He's the only player in SL that could convince me to turn up to a game of SL these days just because he is playing.

He's a massive loss to SL.

IMHO of course.

you comparing tompkins to messi????
if it was a lyons, fittler, johns in their prime then yes i would go just to watch them. tompkins isn't in that bracket.

No argument from me. It's "star players" and their effect on attendances that we're debating isn't it? As opposed to your less-than-subtle introduction of "top players" into the argument instead?

SL has many problems that need attending to... lack of star players is one of the most crucial of those problems.