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?

Because star players draw crowds not matter which sport

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.

A mystery to me, but then golf makes no sense to me in any way. But, and this applies to your Messi example, for one thing they are global superstars in different sports and different market places.

The WCC is an example - to see Cameron Smith and Billy Slater live is the main thing I attended the game for

Tomkins is a world class player and head and shoulders above any other player in SL so in his sport he is comparable to Messi in his.