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

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.